BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The cartoons constitute a religiously motivated hate crime

The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech.[i] Furthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes.  There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities.  Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group. [i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601650.html
Violent reactions to the cartoons could have been predicted and should have been avoided

If the expectation of violence or reprisal is admitted as a legitimate reason not to undertake an action which is protected under freedoms of press and speech, then that effectively stifles a great degree of discourse. This ultimately undermines the purpose of the rights, such as a freedom to publish, and the functioning of western societies like Denmark’s.  It also incentivizes groups who would resort to violence to achieve their aims; if terrorists know that Denmark and other European nations will shy away from certain seemingly controversial or offensive actions if they threaten to kill many people every time, then they can much more easily achieve their goals.  We should not welcome violence, but we should not allow it to govern us either. As the cultural editor who ran the cartoons said, “Words should be answered with words.  That’s all we have in a democracy, and if we give that up, we will be locked in a tyranny of silence.”[i]   [i] AFP, ‘Danish book about Muhammad cartoon controversy to go ahead despite threats’, New York Post, 29 September 2010, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/danish_book_about_muhammad_cartoon_9EU68NwfmSaTSvK3hAiqiP
Radical and anti western voices in Islamic communities gained authority and legitimacy as a result of the newspapers' actions

The publication of the cartoons also resulted in a vigorous debate in Denmark, which saw its Muslim community participate in discourse in the form of debates, opinion pieces in newspapers, protests, and other democratic methods.  Ultimately, then, it may well have caused a greater deal of civic integration than discord.  Denmark and journalistic institutions within it ultimately have little sway over the politics and cultures of all the various Islamic countries all around the world.  Newspapers in Denmark cannot reasonably be expected to gauge what the expected political reactions and emerging dynamics of Muslim communities in every other country might be because of the publication of an article or cartoon. This particular event was exceptional; newspapers publish potentially inflammatory articles and images quite regularly, but this does not result in an international reaction.
Factors motivating publication of the cartoons

Individuals are the best actors to determine for themselves what causes they are willing to make sacrifices for.  This is why we allow individuals to volunteer for wars they believe are just, to serve as humanitarian aid workers in impoverished countries, or for any number of unpleasant and potentially dangerous things.  If they wanted to, no one can tell the editors and cartoonists that they were wrong to take the actions they did on account of personal safety. But anyway, it is clear that they did not comprehend the scale of the risk they were running by publishing the cartoons, so they cannot be blamed for bringing this upon themselves.
Free expression and journalistic integrity

There is press freedom, and there is good taste.  Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done.  It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance.  Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others.  The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.
Chilling effects of excessive cultural sensitivity

There is a difference between a government banning art, and having the good sense not to do certain things in art.  Further, the “artistic skill” in drawing a provocative cartoon is rather minimal; it is not as though cartoonists are held to particularly high technical standards of drawing.  Rather, cartoons are usually a vehicle by which a cartoonist conveys a joke (usually at someone or some group’s expense) for a cheap laugh.  Cartoons no more constitute art than graffiti with an offensive statement on a factory wall constitutes art – that is to say, not at all.
Citizens of western liberal democracies should never be required to adhere to religious norms that they do not hold

In as volatile an atmosphere as 2000s Europe, where rates of immigration from Muslim countries into an aging Europe are high, it is clearly not wise to openly antagonize a component of your population that is already having a great deal of difficulty integrating.  Unlike America, Europe generally cracks down on a variety of xenophobic and hateful actions much more stringently, and should have in this case as well.  Europe is a sufficiently enlightened place to restrict individuals from burning crosses or marching in salute to the Nazi party; one would hope these practices would extend to Islam as well. There therefore in some instances is to a certain extent a right not to be offended – or at least not to have certain offensive things publicized.
Controversy, integration and civic participation

This has not benefitted integration, but rather made Muslims in Denmark feel as though they are under assault and unwelcome in their country.  Particularly for new or newer immigrants, this creates a tendency to form enclave communities around a shared religion or culture and resist the mainstream society as a bloc.  All the Muslim organizations in Denmark banded together against their oppressors.  The few Muslims that spoke out in defence of free speech were severely ostracized by their fellows.
A UN standing army is unnecessary

The lessons from failed UN peacekeeping missions are that ‘coalitions of the willing’ do not work effectively; forces used to training with each other will demonstrate cohesion in a conflict zone 1. Furthermore, states can be unwilling to get involved if they have bad memories; the UN failed to go into Rwanda because of American objections following events in Somalia in 1990 2. A rapid response team that did not rely on American troops would have been able to prevent much of the Rwandan bloodshed, or at the very least alleviate conditions until which time the US could have decided to offer its political will and military support. A standing army is required for those opportune moments when force is required to protect those for whom the major powers are not willing to make sacrifices.  1. Wedgwood, R. (2001). United Nations Peacekeeping Operations and the Use of Force. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 69-86 2, Ibid  improve this
A UN Standing Army would solve the problem of American military hegemony.

A strong, effective and impartial United Nations standing army would deny powerful military states the right to bully and blackmail rivals into submission with the threat of military force. A UN army would be able to balance that threat with their own willingness to come to the aid of states under military duress. The United States, unwilling to risk a protracted conflict against a respected, well-trained multi-national force would have to fall back. To use an example, American military intervention in Vietnam, against the wishes of the majority of the population, could have been prevented had a U.N. standing army existed to respond to the wishes of the Vietnamese people and stand against the United States’ intervention. The existence of such a military rival would therefore force the United States to increase its investment in its State Department and diplomatic solutions to political crises. Ultimately, peace would be more effectively maintained.  improve this
A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises.

Changes in modern warfare dictate the need for an impartial, rapidly-deploying, multi-national force. Modern warfare is no longer the trench battles of battalions aligned to a flag, it is increasingly police actions designed to prevent the resort to warfare in the first place or enforce ceasefires once they have begun. As such, the impartiality of a UN standing army would be highly valuable, offering both parties in the conflict a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper. Contrast this to the perceived differences in attitude between troops from Britain, the US, Russia and France to warring sides in the Balkans. It would be free of accusations of meddling and self-interest that accompany the participation of troops from neighbouring states in UN interventions (for example, Nigeria in West African missions). A UN standing army could overcome local civilian suspicion, free from the threat of propaganda from those opposed to it and free from the restraints of state power on those troops involved. Furthermore, a UN standing army would be able to deploy much faster than current peacekeeping missions which are held back by the bureaucracy of finding troops, equipment and funding. The present system takes months to put forces in the field, and these are often inadequate to the task in hand, as member states have pledged fewer troops than were requested and they then struggle to co-ordinate across cultural and linguistic barriers. This has meant the UN has often acted too late, with too little force, and has thereby failed to avert humanitarian disasters in such places as Central Africa, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Somalia. A UN standing army would be permanently available and able to deploy rapidly to contain crises before they turn into full-scale wars and humanitarian disasters. Without an independent army, the UN has ‘no capacity to avert such catastrophes’ 1 for it simply cannot raise forces quickly or effectively enough.   [1] Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p.23. improve this
A UN standing army would be more effective in operations themselves.

A UN standing army would be more effective than the variety of troops staffing missions under the current system. At present most UN operations are supplied by developing nations who hope to make a profit from the payments they receive for their services, but who are under-equipped and badly trained. Forces from the major powers are provided sparingly and only after substantial public pressure or when there exists an incentive for their use. A UN standing army would be better prepared, both in regards to training and equipment, and its soldiers would have greater motivation as they would have made a choice to enlist, rather than being conscripts forced by their own states to fight someone else’s war. A single UN force would also have better command and control than in current situations, when different national forces and their commanders often fail to work effectively together in the field for cultural and linguistic reasons. Successful forces such as the French Foreign Legion, the Indian army and the Roman army show that issues of language and culture need not be problems in combat situations. They can be overcome through a strong professional ethos and a commitment to a mutual cause, values that can only be expected to develop if troops prepare, train and fight together. improve this
A UN standing army would not be cost-effective.

The cost of such an army would be very high, especially if it were to include purchase of air and sea transport to reach theatres of operation, added to the high costs of permanent establishment and training, and equipping the force for every possible type of terrain. State armed forces have the advantage of preparing for specific battles with specific enemies. Any UN standing force would be forced by its very nature to prepare for every enemy, in every environment. Such a scope is neither desirable nor easy to overcome without great expense and large numbers. At present, the UN model is preferable; it can draw upon different kind of troops for different kinds of missions from whatever member states feel best equipped to deal with a particular situation.  improve this
A UN standing army is simply impossible to form.

A standing army for the United Nations has an existing legal framework; it has never been attempted in practice because it would be impossible to create. Article 43 of the original UN Charter specifies that all member states are expected, upon the signing of a future UN agreement, to provide ‘forces, assistance and facilities’ for the maintenance of international peace and security 1. That it is has never been attempted is the direct result of its sheer impracticality; who would contribute the troops? How would they be trained, and ensure that troops trained in one state would not be asked to thereafter fire on their own colleagues? Furthermore, where would the U.N. standing army be located, for the United Nations has no land, and the United States would not take kindly to a reprisal attack on the UN Army at the United Nations Headquarters. And who would fund this army? The United States hasn’t paid its bills to the United Nations in years due to their opposition to some of its actions/ What is there in place to prevent that continuing? Lastly, and most importantly, whose will would they be implementing, for the United Nations is not a single voice but the aggregated noise of its member states? The Security Council, which currently dictates the form that U.N. peacekeeping operations take, are not a group to whom impartiality can be attributed. A U.N standing army at the behest of the Security Council would be used sparingly at best and only in regions and conflicts for whom all the P5 had a vested interest in the maintenance of peace. Any impartiality that the U.N. standing army had in theory would be lost in practice.  1. U.N. Charter, (1945) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml improve this
There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare.

If it is granted that the UN currently reacts too slowly to crises, alternatives for an improved response could be implemented without resorting to a standing army. A Rapid Reaction Force made up of fast-response units from member states with elite military capability, pledged in advance for UN operations, would build upon the best features of the current system. Security Council reform to remove the veto powers from the Permanent 5 members would allow deadlocks in decision-making to be rapidly broken and avoid the compromises which produce weak mission mandates. An improved prediction capability through better intelligence and analysis, and central logistical planning at UN headquarters would allow forces to be assembled and mandates drafted before problems became full-blown crises. Security Council rules could be changed so that resolutions requiring force could not be passed until troops have been pledged in advance.
A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population.

Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1.  1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787   improve this
A UN standing army is unnecessary

A UN standing army is unnecessary; in many cases UN missions are very successful. In Guatemala for example, a UN peacekeeping mission was essential in enabling the conclusion of a decades-long civil war in 1997. When there are problems these are more to do with lengthy and difficult Security Council deliberations, inadequate mandates, etc. rather than how long it took to gather a force together. In Srebrenica for example, where thousands of Bosnian men and boys were slaughtered by Serbian troops, the problem was not the absence of peacekeepers on the ground, but an inadequate mandate to use force. The UN would be much better spending its efforts on setting up a proper peacekeeping department, and streamlining the UN as a whole.  improve this
A UN Standing Army would solve the problem of American military hegemony.

A UN standing army would not solve 'the problem of American military hegemony', even if there is such a problem. It is perhaps unlikely that the US would fund such an army.  Nor would other major military spenders like the United Kingdom be likely to since they already send troops to NATO, possibly in the near future to an EU army, and having its own army it would be significantly overstretched. This United Nations could not raise sufficient funds to create such a force. To establish military parity with the US would require a large nuclear arsenal and an enormous military infrastructure. States will not ever finance such a force at the expense of building up their own forces. The army would have to be willing to be pitched against the interests of the US or other permanent members of the Security Council, yet any U.N. standing army would require the blessing of that Security Council, where those members have a veto. Therefore making this not possible, as only the UNSC can be responsible for security. American military hegemony will not be challenged by a force that is under its own direction.  improve this
A UN standing army would be ideally suited to respond to contemporary crises.

Impartiality is not defined by the constitution of the forces, but the decision-making process which determine their use. A UN standing army would not alter the injustice of the UN Security Council and its veto system, which institutionalizes self-interest in the decisions of the body. As the recent proposal for an independent UN force indicates, the force could move swiftly to avert catastrophe but only specifically ‘after UN authorization’1. Therefore whilst a UN standing army would ostensibly be neutral, the uses for which it would be deployed would still have the same, underlying self-interested motives on the part of the UN Security Council. The problem is therefore not resolved, but pushed further up the line. “We have to walk a fine line in order to build support in the U.S. and in developing countries. This sort of thing creates suspicion that Western countries want to use this for political purposes.” 2 On speed of deployment, the UN’s ability to respond more quickly is not a serious problem. Many of the UN’s most embarrassing incidents occurred when its troops were very much on the ground already. The three oft-quoted examples are Srebrenica, Somalia, Rwanda; in the 1990s all three states played host to UN peacekeeping forces, and in each case further bloodshed ensued. At Srebrenica, Serbian troops marched the Bosnian Muslim men out of a UN-declared ‘safe area’ 3; the fault for their massacre does not rest with speed of deployment or troop cohesion. As Morrison states, ‘until U.N. member states devote as much attention to solving the underlying political causes of national and international disputes as they have to the creation of a U.N. permanent military force, true solutions will remain elusive’4. The UN needs to be able to respond more effectively, not necessarily more quickly.   1 .Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. p22 2. Perelman, M. (2007, September 5). Calls Grow for Creation of Standing U.N. Army. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Forward: http://www.forward.com/articles/11552/ 3. Canturk, L. (2007, October 25). Anatomy of a Peacekeeping Mission: Srebrenica Revisited. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Worldpress: http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/2975.cfm 4. Morrison, A. (1994). Fiction of a U.N. Standing Army. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 83-96 improve this
A UN standing army would be more effective in operations themselves.

A UN standing army would still have the same drawbacks as the current model. Differences in language, culture, etc. will seriously mar operational effectiveness, especially in combat situations, irrespective of whether they have been trained together. In the heat of the battle, troops that have grown up in different cultures, speaking different languages will understandably fall back upon what they know. Cultural instincts cannot be retaught or unlearned in a military barracks; they will prove an obstacle to operational effectiveness. In addition, in a truly multinational force there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from a particular mission, thereby perhaps weakening the whole force? A UN army might also end up being very poorly equipped, for if the advanced military powers start to see the UN as a potential rival or adversary, they will refuse to provide it with quality arms and armour. In that case, the UN standing army becomes both another rival in the global balance of power and may drive opposition to the institution itself and its long fight to garner respect. improve this
A UN standing army would not be cost-effective.

A UN standing army would be cost effective. It would bring benefits to the world economy, and therefore offset its own expense, through avoiding the protracted costs of refugee crises and other humanitarian disasters. These costs are both direct (through aid) and indirect (as developed nations often become the destination of illegal immigrants fleeing conflicts at home, e.g. Sri Lankans and Kurds). War also disrupts trade and thus damages the global economy, while a greater confidence that war can be avoided in future will encourage more long-term investment and thus greater prosperity. Moreover, member states providing troops for current UN missions are paid for their services, so a UN standing army would not be much more expensive that the present system.  improve this