The Danish Cartoon - pretext to war?? !!??

ionapaul

Canadian Muslims speak on the controversy:

Cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist are deeply offensive, but so is the violent reaction to the drawings from Islamic extremists, Canadian Muslims said Thursday.

Outrage over the cartoons, first published in Denmark in September and reprinted in other European countries, has been spreading along with ominous threats throughout the Islamic world.

“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

“It's falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060202.wgravenimage0202/BNStory/Front

Victor

Suff wrote:

Black people oppression in the states or make fun of the so called Holocaust then we'll see the world's reaction!!!

Wibbs wrote:

Thanks Davei141 I just spotted that. So called eh? Hmmm. Care to explain?

See how a change of emphasis change can change your view of something completely?

Look at something like the Brass Eye special about phedophiles a few years ago. Look at something like South Park. Hell christian groups have tried to get Friends banned.

Did you hear about closing of diplomatic centers or death threats with any of those nutters. Eh that would be no again then.

Remember when the News of the World ran its campaing of outing paedophiles? Some people started attacking paediatricians

Wicknight wrote:

I hope you see the irony in that ... when a Christian group with large support and positions of power call for the banning of the Beatles or the Life of Brian or South Park, well that isn't really a reflection on our society, it is rightwing nut jobs who are a small small percentage of our society (despite the fact that they actually tend to hold quite high positions of power, Life of Brian was banned by a number of local councils in England).

Life of Brian was banned here for about 20 years, a blasphemy banned by civil authorities.

How about we go do some flag burning on Ailesbury Road, see how far we get?

Suff

please...

Come on!!!! sketches making fun or displaying political/ social issues are completly different than attacking beliefs or religious icons!!!

we all see sketchs on the Irish,German, French, Arabs, Israelies, Americans, Bush, Blair,.... it'a ok cos they display POLITICAL issues.

if some newspaper issued a sketch displaying insults to Moses as a Miser diamond loving Jew or a Bloody Zionist, or of Chirst as a child molester because of the scandels with some priests or the Virgin Mary as a prostitute!
they are attacks on beliefs/religious icons and it should not be allowed.

why cant we print some sketchs on disabled people? what's stopping us if some people lost regards to everything

there should be a respect factor to these issues. if people dont then what the hell do we have left to respect!

rsynnott

Really, why is this such a big deal? People make fun of various religions all the time. People say ALL SORTS of things about atheists, and yet I refrain from boycotting their countries.

stuartfanning

Pictures censored by Digital Spy.

http://forum.digitalspy.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=339344

Suff

Im going off-topic just to clear one thing:

the term Anti-semetic

Theodor Herzel The founder of modern Zionism

Herzl stated in his diary

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

RE*AC*TOR

Suff wrote:

Im going off-topic just to clear one thing:

the term Anti-semetic

Theodor Herzel The founder of modern Zionism

Herzl stated in his diary

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16)

your point is?

bernardo

religion ... religion ... again and again .... story of mankind
"religion was created by men to control other men"
how can I respect religion (for me just a well success secte with good PR at the time) and be said by these guys why I should think and do or not to do.
Freedom of speech is my right and I will stand up for it !!!

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Sigh ... its only a contradiction in your own head

It is your stereotype of Muslims that makes you believe that if something is a big deal to a Muslim they must go out and burn flags and mob embassies. Would you expect western Christians to do the same thing?

That has been my entire point all along ... sweet jesus!

It is perfectly possible for something to be insulting and a big deal to a Muslim without turning him/her into fundamentalist nut jobs who wants to go blow something up. Some of them turn into fundamentalist nut jobs, in the same way that abortion drives some Christians to murder for their religion.

Sigh...I was expecting this. I tried to specify non-violent actions for that reason. We are now starting to have the same problems we ran into in another thread a while back where you put words into my mouth. I suppose flag-burning is sort of violent, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it, but mobbing (protesting outside, not storming) an embassy isn't. It's something that often happens when people anywhere are upset with the government of some country. Plenty of Christians have been known to do it. They've boycotted stuff too BTW.

The level of protest, registering of discontent, tends to indicate how upset people are over something - doesn't it? Is that unreasonable? Do you think I'm somehow being a bigot against muslims by saying that?
If people do nothing but seethe, well, maybe they aren't that angry really.

Even if there was no violence or threat of violence I actually think the level of protest, the boycott, the complaints of governments, and the way it has been directed at "Denmark" and indeed "Europe" (how is that for a massive generalisation, eh) is excessive, a complete overreaction which I have been disturbed by.

Wicknight wrote:

It depends on if you think abortion is a big deal or not. You obviously do.

Whatever. You were the one who mentioned it.
So there are no absolutes now. These cartoons are a big deal because alot of Muslims say they are and that is it.
If enough people decide they are the most pressing issue facing the entire world they then become the most pressing issue facing the entire world.
I think I can feel what is left of my mind starting to melt yet again...

Wicknight wrote:

I seem to remember Muslims were quite pissed off about that as well until it turned out it wasn't true.

Exactly. It generated much more protest in several Islamic states than the Iraq war and Gitmo/Bagram airbase.
I suppose (if it were true) that means it is more important an issue than either. How is that for priorities.

Zombrex

Davei141 wrote:

Ive watched many of comedy/cartoons about irish people being leprachauns and drunks, not once have i gotten upset or felt like going for a riot.

Good for you...

Davei141 wrote:

Would you understand irish people occupying americans embassies with guns, because of family guy?

No I wouldn't, and equally I wouldn't apprecate Americans expressing attitutes along the line of "what is it about the Irish that makes them so fecking violent" if an Irish nut job did do something stupid over Family Guy.

That attitute was quite common in England during the 70s, 80s and early 90s

I don't expect to be stereotyped for being Irish because of what the IRA have been doing for the last 30 years in my name, or because of the support a group like SF enjoys.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

I tried to specify non-violent actions for that reason.

Ok, let me rephrase.

It doesn't matter if they are non-violent, they are extreme.

fly_agaric wrote:

If people do nothing but seethe, well, maybe they aren't that angry really.

When was the last time the Irish people mobbed Dial Eireann (stormed in a non-violent manner) and when was the last time the Irish people were upset about something the government has done

Based on that logic the Irish have never been upset by anything.

fly_agaric wrote:

a complete overreaction which I have been disturbed by.

That point is clear.

But then you don't seem to even understand why anyone would be upset by a picture of Mohammad dressed as a suicide bomber, so I am not really being blowed over by your ability to understand the otherside of the argument.

fly_agaric wrote:

Whatever. You were the one who mentioned it.

I mentioned it in the hope of showing you and others that there exists religious position in the west that generate equally strong feelings amoung Christians.

Unfortuanately you seemed to have missed the point by dismissing what I was saying by saying abortion is important this cartoon isn't.

Abortion isn't that big a deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

This cartoon isn't a big deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

fly_agaric wrote:

These cartoons are a big deal because alot of Muslims say they are and that is it.

True, just like anything. I don't give a sh*t about the Queen of England, she means nothing to me. English people might take a slightly different view.

Sticking two fingers up at a friend as a joke isn't a big deal. An Irish person sticking two fingers up at the Queen of England in a photo on the cover of something like the Daily Mail and you can bet that would be a big deal.

fly_agaric wrote:

I suppose (if it were true) that means it is more important an issue than either. How is that for priorities.

Would kinda imply that Muslims take insults to their religion kinda seriously now wouldn't it? I fail to see how dismissing that as an over reaction is helpful.

Davei141

Wicknight wrote:

Would kinda imply that Muslims take insults to their religion kinda seriously now wouldn't it? I fail to see how dismissing that as an over reaction is helpful.

How serious?

Good for you...

Id rather say thats good for those around me.

No I wouldn't, and equally I wouldn't apprecate Americans expressing attitutes along the line of "what is it about the Irish that makes them so fecking violent" if an Irish nut job did do something stupid over Family Guy.

That attitute was quite common in England during the 70s, 80s and early 90s

I don't expect to be stereotyped for being Irish because of what the IRA have been doing for the last 30 years in my name, or because of the support a group like SF enjoys.

Who would you be pissed off at more? Joe america or Joe english who takes the view that the irish are violent, or Joe irish that gives them that view?

Zombrex

Davei141 wrote:

How serious?

Quite serious

Davei141 wrote:

Joe america or Joe english who takes the view that the irish are violent, or Joe irish that gives them that view?

I would be pissed off at the person stereotyping me. I have no control of the IRA members if they want to do something stupid and claim it was in my name. I will denounce it if it comes up.

But if I get hassle for being Irish because some idiot English person believes all Irish people are two whiskeys short of killing the Queen he will be getting some sturn words from me.

Victor

Davei141 wrote:

As i said before, the one muslim country that printed the cartoon saying not to overreact

So Jordan printed the cartoon, not some Jordanian paper?

See its an easy mistake isn't it?

Davei141

Wicknight wrote:

Quite serious

Serious enough for violence?

I would be pissed off at the person stereotyping me. I have no control of the IRA members if they want to do something stupid and claim it was in my name. I will denounce it if it comes up.

You would educate him right? you wouldnt react violently reinforcing his stereotype. Thats exactly how those canadian muslims feel, those rioting are reinforcing stereotypes.

But if I get hassle for being Irish because some idiot English person believes all Irish people are two whiskeys short of killing the Queen he will be getting some sturn words from me.

You wouldnt resort to violence though.

Would you feel angry at the people claiming to represent you? Damn right you would, because its them that are giving the stereotype, and its up to you (and me) to change it.

Davei141

Victor wrote:

So Jordan printed the cartoon, not some Jordanian paper?

See its an easy mistake isn't it?

I already said the jordanian government was taking action against the newspaper. Why dont you quote that part aswell. Yes it was a mistake in wording, but your naive to think those saying "denmark has declared war on islam" are merely making mistakes. Dont forget, it was a muslim in denmark who said that.

And also, if my words were going to lead to rioting, burning flags, firing weapons, i would of chose them more wisely, seeing as they dont, your comparisons are crap.

Zombrex

Davei141 wrote:

Serious enough for violence?

Are you saying you can't take something very seriously without resorting to violence?

Davei141 wrote:

you wouldnt react violently reinforcing his stereotype.

No I wouldn't react violently

Davei141 wrote:

You wouldnt resort to violence though.

No I wouldn't. Neither would, I imagine, 99% of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world to this cartoon. Which doesn't mean they don't take their religion seriously, and it doesn't mean they would not be insulted.

Davei141 wrote:

Would you feel angry at the people claiming to represent you? Damn right you would, because its them that are giving the stereotype, and its up to you (and me) to change it.

No its not.

Its not my responsibility to make sure people don't use the name of Ireland for violent ends, nor should I accept the negative stereotypes that result in the brains of narrow minded English people who cannot see past those same violent ends.

Davei141

Wicknight wrote:

Are you saying you can't take something very seriously without resorting to violence?

Me? of course. Everybody? questionable.

No I wouldn't react violently

Good.

No I wouldn't. Neither would 99% of Muslims in the world to this cartoon.

Of course, but if somebody did react violently, you would condemn them? right?

No its not.

I beg to differ.

Its not my responsibility to make sure people don't use the name of Ireland for violent ends, nor should I accept the negative stereotypes that result in the brains of narrow minded English people who cannot see past those violent ends.

Its up to you to distance yourself and condemn the IRA though isnt it?

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

When was the last time the Irish people mobbed Dial Eireann (stormed in a non-violent manner) and when was the last time the Irish people were upset about something the government has done

Based on that logic the Irish have never been upset by anything.

Off the top of my head (the best you deserve I'm afraid), probably one of those big IFI protests some time ago. Spare me the sarcasm anyway You know what I mean by mobbed.

Based on that logic the last things many Irish people were really, really upset by were Irish Ferries' work practices, the impending Iraq war, and Farm incomes (big issues that have brought people out onto the streets in numbers in the recent past). A pretty reasonable gauge wouldn't you say. Actually, it makes you think a bit about some of the things Irish people claim they are so upset by in opinion polls and the like (eg the state of the health service).

Wicknight wrote:

But then you don't seem to even understand why anyone would be upset by a picture of Mohammad dressed as a suicide bomber, so I am not really being blowed over by your ability to understand the otherside of the argument.

:v:
Some of the cartoons are insulting (esp. I would think the one with the bomb in Mohammed's turban and the "martyrs" queuing up for their supply of virgins).

I mean if muslims in Denmark were boycotting that paper, protesting outside its offices and writing nasty letters to the editor I wouldn't be surprised at all and I know if I were running that paper I definitely wouldn't have had the stones to print the more offensive ones. Possibly the tamer ones - but not the ones commenting on terrorism and Islam.

I don't understand why they are so very upset (er, angry would be better) over this a few thousand miles away in the ME and in other countries that they boycott products en masse, and the most "upset" people burn flags and go on marches while the extremists issue threats.

Why it has become an international incident involving the governments of Islamic states and the Danish government with an apology expected from the latter to the former for the actions of the (presumably) free press in Denmark? I don't understand that either.

Now that other rags in Europe decide to up-the-ante and reprint the cartoons (or course, they wouldn't have done this if Denmark hadn't go so much over the top flack from the governments of various Islamic states, threats and demands hadn't been made etc)- Islamic religious leaders in turn up the ante and call for a Muslim (I presume, muslims in general) day of anger (can't be good I'd say).

So yeah. It seems like a vast overreaction to me if it is really all just about these blasted cartoons. If its about "hate the West" and "go for the easy target" I can understand it.

Wicknight wrote:

Abortion isn't that big a deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

This cartoon isn't a big deal unless you believe it is wrong. Then it is quite a big deal.

...True, just like anything. I don't give a sh*t about the Queen of England, she means nothing to me. English people might take a slightly different view.

Sticking two fingers up at a friend as a joke isn't a big deal. An Irish person sticking two fingers up at the Queen of England in a photo on the cover of something like the Daily Mail and you can bet that would be a big deal.

Look I do try, but I can't get my head around this kind of, em, relativism, isn't that what it's called? This nothing is really important unless people think it is important and there is no absolute scale of importance for anything at all.

Perhaps if I had done some Arts/Humanities courses somewhere I'd understand.

Are you saying that people can't feel something is a big deal unless they attach a judgement of right and wrong to it?

Wicknight wrote:

...Would kinda imply that Muslims take insults to their religion kinda seriously now wouldn't it? I fail to see how dismissing that as an over reaction is helpful.

So because Muslims are a special case and (generalising) take their religion more seriously than most we also have to be deadly serious about it at all times? What if that conficts with other things we hold dear and are a "big deal" for us?

Anyway what do you think should be done to calm people down about this? Whatever is necessary? A bit of political brownnosing? Some strict anti-religious hatred legislation for the press? Is it too late?

...some extra editing for crappy syntax

Essey

When one is making comparisons one should stick with apples to apples. The small number of anti-abortionists which have prescribed to blowing up practicing clinics is not comparable to what is happen in this issue. No embassy was close, tens of thousands did not take to the streets, far reaching boycotts were not called for, hundreds did not lose their jobs etc... That would be like saying someone was murdered in Dublin and everyone was calling it a massacre. People were murdered in these incidents - mureder is illegal - and if caught the offenders were punished by the law. The reaction of Muslims groups throughout the world has been to some extent quite excessive. Should they be outraged? Sure - I'm a Christian and I've been appalled by some of the things that I've read but that isn't an excuse. The appropriate response would be to demand an apology and if necessary then boycott that newspaper. Not take all Danish products off the shelves throughout the Middle East. This behavior is merely reenforcing what the cartoonists were pointing out (rightly or wrongly) - that Muslims are violent, excessive and borderline insane. To not respect the principals of freedom of speech leaves us open to "where will this end?". What next topic will upset everyone. If an Irish politician was corrupt - would you remain silent because you might offend him? his party? his mother??? If Muslims want respect they are also responsible for issuing some. They too must respect our values of free speech and if what is being said is deemed moronic then say so.

Essey

Essey wrote:

The reaction of Muslims groups throughout the world has been to some extent quite excessive. Should they be outraged? Sure - I'm a Christian and I've been appalled by some of the things that I've read but that isn't an excuse. The appropriate response would be to demand an apology and if necessary then boycott that newspaper. Not take all Danish products off the shelves throughout the Middle East. This behavior is merely reenforcing what the cartoonists were pointing out (rightly or wrongly) - that Muslims are violent, excessive and borderline insane. To not respect the principals of freedom of speech leaves us open to "where will this end?". What next topic will upset everyone.

Gotta say I agree with pretty much everything in that post.

Suff

I don't!

Suff

Essey wrote:

They too must respect our values of free speech and if what is being said is deemed moronic then say so.

freedom of speech is completly different this is a insensitive, attack, vulgar, insulting, ignorance mocking of a religious Icon.

freedom of speech is a term for something that does not exist

I am angry and insulted but I would not rush out to burn a Danish flag!

BlitzKrieg

I don't understand why they are so very upset (er, angry would be better) over this a few thousand miles away in the ME and in other countries that they boycott products en masse, and the most "upset" people burn flags and go on marches while the extremists issue threads.

Because a group of very pissed off Muslims from Denmark campaigned across the middle east since september. Throw in an already escalating fear on both sides and you can see how so many can easily jump the gun (as people around the world have done so many times before when information is told in a negative fashion).

Wikipedia wrote:

A Muslim religious organisation in Denmark, Islamisk Trossamfund, has brought attention to the cartoons during a tour of the Middle-East, and has allegedly represented that Muslims in Denmark have been exposed to much more overtly offensive images

So because Muslims are a special case and (generalising) take their religion more seriously than most we also have to take it deadly serious about it at all times? What if that conficts with other things we hold dear and are a "big deal" for us?

Yes Muslims should be treated as a special case in the same way judiasm and other religions which are directly tied to a governemental body should be treated as special cases. We dont bend over backwards for them, but we dont forget that it is not an internal affair with a religous minority, its a kick in the teeth to a number of countries.

Unlike the majority of western states, there is no seperation of church and state in many middle eastern states, so in the politics of international relations it is advised that people have common sense not to knowingly offend entire nations rather then groups within a nation. Its the same as openly offending the Jewish faith, you will offend the entire Isreali state.

That doesnt mean we should take the backstep on every issue, as not to offend, it means one should (and i go back to my original post) do a risk assessment. And keep in mind that your not offending a minority group, your offending numerous countries.

I have to ask why the cartoons had to directly scribble onto to them that the character was Muhammad, the outcry would have been nowhere near as huge if the artist had gone for stereotypical bad muslim, yes there would have been complaints, but there are always complaints, except now something has been commited that almost every Muslim agrees is too offensive.

Essey

Suff - freedom of speech does exist and has been embodied in our culture since the age of enlightenment. People and been imprisoned for exercising it and other have died because they have used it or because someone didn't use it enough. Muslims when they burn a flag - use freedom of speech but don't extend the courtesy to us. While I agree that one should exercise restraint and a few ounces of reason when exercising their right - we would be doing our society a grave injustice if we were to muzzle every unpleasant, bizarre, ridiculous thought that ever existed. Once upon a time thinking of moon walking could have gotten you committed. If something you read or heard is wrong or offensive it is you right - no duty - to point it out - in a peaceful, responsible and logical manner.

Vangelis

Well, extremist Muslims are now declaring war on Norway and Denmark and they have issued threats of terror-attacks if an offical apology by the government is not given within a limited time. Thank you so much, Jylland-posten.

So much for a the utterance of a despicable little Christian newspaper.

It's embarrassing. All because the newspapers are to stuck up to humble themselves. If they want suicide-bombers to come to Scandinavia, I hope they attack the newspapers' locations first. You reap what you sow.

dermot_sheehan

Vangelis wrote:

Well, extremist Muslims are now declaring war on Norway and Denmark and they have issued threats of terror-attacks if an offical apology by the government is not given within a limited time. Thank you so much, Jylland-posten.

So much for a the utterance of a despicable little Christian newspaper.

It's embarrassing. All because the newspapers are to stuck up to humble themselves. If they want suicide-bombers to come to Scandinavia, I hope they attack the newspapers' locations first. You reap what you sow.

Why the hell should they humble themselves? They were exercising their right to free speech in a country that guarantees free speech. Their conduct did not advocate the commission of a crime (such as the free speech we tolerate from some islamic fanatics).

It's our right to ridicule and poke fun at religions and other systems of beliefs, because they are ideas, and if they are strong they should be able to stand up to them. Restrictions on freedom of speech should be constrictly construed for only the most necessary of reasons, that forgeiners in a forgein land find it offensive is not good enough.

We should have the right to offend other religions. I have the right to say that the prophet was not devinely inspired, that he heard the voices in his head from some mental illness. That the quaran was rewritten to remove references to a goddess that Rushdie alleges was in the original version. Practioners of islam may find my statements create awkward questions in their mind, but tough, live with it.

If we can't publish pictures like this in our own land, surely we've given in to a forgein tyranny.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/jbgusa/muhamed%20cartoons/Muhammed_Jens_Julius_Hansen_Jylland.jpg

rsynnott

The paper should absolutely not back down just because of crazy threats.

Suff

there is a difference between the freedom of speech and the freedom to insult!

take boards.ie for example you cannot abuse or insult people/faith. otherwise we would have the same tension now.

Suff

rsynnott wrote:

The paper should absolutely not back down just because of crazy threats.

they should apologiese because its insulting and offensive.

the cheif editor said that if he had known of the reaction level he would not approved of publishing these images.

there is the freedom of speech and the freedom to insult!

Sand

Well, extremist Muslims are now declaring war on Norway and Denmark and they have issued threats of terror-attacks if an offical apology by the government is not given within a limited time. Thank you so much, Jylland-posten.

So much for a the utterance of a despicable little Christian newspaper.

It's embarrassing. All because the newspapers are to stuck up to humble themselves. If they want suicide-bombers to come to Scandinavia, I hope they attack the newspapers' locations first. You reap what you sow.

Van, they were making a point about how people are terrified of going anywhere near Islam like they do with say Christianity or any other religion -primarily because fanatical nut jobs wont just threaten them, theyll kill them. Dont you think its a problem that people are threatening to murder cartoonists and scandinavias over something that barely registers compared to South Parks use of Jesus and Christianity in general? Say they appease the violent fundamentalists this time, how long till more threats are issued for some other infraction against Muslims feelings?

There has to be a point where its made clear that violent threats on the exercise of free speech is wholly wrong and unacceptable. If something offends you, say so. Dont go round murdering the person or persons who offended you. The later you leave it to spell it out, the greater the fallout. Theres an imbalance in terms of freedoms between the Middle East and Europe. I would hope they would gain our freedoms, not us surrender ours to meet them.

I have to ask why the cartoons had to directly scribble onto to them that the character was Muhammad, the outcry would have been nowhere near as huge if the artist had gone for stereotypical bad muslim, yes there would have been complaints, but there are always complaints, except now something has been commited that almost every Muslim agrees is too offensive.

As I understand it, the point was to have it as Muhammed, to directly confront the reasons why cartoonists are so difficult to find for childrens books dealing with Islamic tales. Or why there has never been an Islamic Life of Brian.

Essey

Actually Suff - not really. Boards.ie moderate in order to maintain control over the posters and keep the subject matter on topic. In the real word discussion of varying sorts must take place. If we are to silence all objectionable subject matter - without the benefit of airing thoughts and administrating education and guidance these ideas will merely fester and infect further. Extreme shows of defiance will only serve to enforce the ideas others have formed on you or of the topic. When **** flies it sticks somewhere. If Muslims sense that westerns have a poor opinion of them - then their response should be dialogue and education - not beheading, kidnappings, and mass destruction.
It was nice chatting - have a nice weekend.

Sand

take boards.ie for example you cannot abuse or insult people/faith. otherwise we would have the same tension now.

Yes you can. You cant abuse posters, but you can make any comments you wish (within reason) about any public person, institution or group. Including religions. The amount of stick Christianity gets on Boards.ie is proof of that.

BlitzKrieg

Van, they were making a point about how people are terrified of going anywhere near Islam like they do with say Christianity or any other religion -primarily because fanatical nut jobs wont just threaten them, theyll kill them. Dont you think its a problem that people are threatening to murder cartoonists and scandinavias over something that barely registers compared to South Parks use of Jesus and Christianity in general? Say they appease the violent fundamentalists this time, how long till more threats are issued for some other infraction against Muslims feelings?

I understand the newspapers intentions, but it could it infact have been too blunt? It was an interesting theory that printing such cartoons would lead to a fanatical response. But even before it was printed there was enough evidence to tell the world what the response would have been (previous incidents) and also the general atmosphere between the west and islam should made someone think twice before posting something that could set it off.

Of course they had the article to go with the cartoons, but like so much the rest of the world a narrow minded group ignored the true intentions and have paraded around pulling everyone else off their feet putting their own intentions into it.

Funny that you mention South Park. Cause episode 504 Super Best Friends has Mohammad in it. Throwing fireballs from his hands no less. But this was before 9/11

It is more a creation of the times and its presentation that has led to the current situation.

dloob

I don't see why any religious icon should be protected from critism.
Especially in the case of muhammad whose history is the source of some
controversy involving wars and massacres.

There are elements of all religions that deserve critism.
It's getting to the stage where Islam is becoming beyond reproach and
people won't say anything about, not out of respect for it mind, but because
of fear of the inevitable freak out and death threats.

Where will it end? Will the west have to adopt Shari law because our
decadent lifestyles offend Muslims.

Wibbs

Vangelis wrote:

So much for a the utterance of a despicable little Christian newspaper.

What about the utterances of a the despicable little Islamic newspapers (and clerics) that are further fanning the flames

It's embarrassing. All because the newspapers are to stuck up to humble themselves.

And why are we treating some in the Islamic world like unruly aggressive children, incapable of "humbling" themselves and looking at this as the unfunny "joke" it is?

If they want suicide-bombers to come to Scandinavia, I hope they attack the newspapers' locations first.

Nice sentiment.

You reap what you sow.

Quiite and if "we"* back down too far over this we're going to be doing some reaping.

Suff wrote:

there is a difference between the freedom of speech and the freedom to insult!

I agree with you, but the difference should be worked out in dialogue and/or a court of law. Too many times nowadays, especially in dealings with Islam, violence and the threat of same is what sets the boundaries.


*Sadly I think more and more it is an us and them situation. This furore goes some way to proving the ignorance and intolerance on both sides.

Cork

Suff wrote:

there is a difference between the freedom of speech and the freedom to insult!

take boards.ie for example you cannot abuse or insult people/faith. otherwise we would have the same tension now.

Mary O rourke could actually wage war on RTE over Bull Island.

Bertie could declare war on Today FM over Gift Grub.

We live in an open & free society.

This needs to be pointed out.

Suff

dloob wrote:

Where will it end? Will the west have to adopt Shari law because our
decadent lifestyles offend Muslims.

No! and it's not decadent!!! the west needs to understand the difference between freedom to speak your mind and the freedom to be insulting and vulgar while hiding behind the "Freedom of Speech".

Funny that only in the west you would find a statue of Christ with ofensive words and some male parts (How sick) if the west has lost its morals values do you want the world to copy it!

Moral values, respect towards religious icons from whatever religion can only show the level of RESPECT ,UNDERSTANDING and TOLLERNCE that people have for each other

at the moment the West seems to be running low on that.

Suff

Cork wrote:

Mary O rourke could actually wage war on RTE over Bull Island.

Bertie could declare war on Today FM over Gift Grub.

We live in an open & free society.

This needs to be pointed out.

thay are all political and not religious Icons!!!

Stimpyone

Suff wrote:

No! and it's not decadent!!! the west needs to understand the difference between freedom to speak your mind and the freedom to be insulting and vulgar while hiding behind the "Freedom of Speech".

Funny that only in the west you would find a statue of Christ with ofensive words and some male parts (How sick) if the west has lost its morals values do you want the world to copy it!

Moral values, respect towards religious icons from whatever religion can only show the level of RESPECT ,UNDERSTANDING and TOLLERNCE that people have for each other

at the moment the West seems to be running low on that.

Thou shalt not kill....... respect that

CiaranC

thay are all political and not religious Icons!!!

Religion is a voluntary belief system, the same as a political one. You seem to be under the impression that belief systems centred around theology should have some special protection. This is not the case, and hopefully it never will be.

Cork

Suff wrote:

thay are all political and not religious Icons!!!

So - It is fine to insult political people and not religious.


We live in a democracy. We have incitement to hatred legalislation.

We give rights of freedom of speech and equal rights to women.


Freedom of speech is also a right that has to be defended.

There is no way any group should tell us to impose censorship.

Let them boycott away.

What has been learnt since Salman Rushdie?

BuffyBot

Moral values, respect towards religious icons from whatever religion can only show the level of RESPECT ,UNDERSTANDING and TOLLERNCE that people have for each other

Lots of respect, understanding and tolerance at the London demonstrations yesterday, especially on the banners and placards. Now, imagine if non-muslim people went marching with placards saying some of what they were saying, how long would that demonstration last. You can't help but wonder...

Wibbs

Good point BuffyBot. You can imagine the outcry if we saw "Islam is the cancer, the west is the cure" or "Kill those who deny freedom to speak" or Cut the head off all who don't believe in the west". Ho ho, there would be hand wringing aplenty over those kind of sentiments, especially if it was a large number of people, not your usual 20 blokes and a dog that the daft neo nazi types get. These radicals are equally daft I reckon.

fly_agaric

Thanks Blitzkrieg for the reference to your first post which I had not read fully. Your point about bad timing is taken, but something like this was inevitable at some point (Western newspaper/media deciding to have a pop at Islamic taboos) because of what has being happening over the past few years. Being selfish, it is good for Ireland that something like this has happened now rather than later when we have a large Muslim minority here in less of a mood to be reasonable. That assumes that things will improve after this affair blows over of course.

Blitzkreig wrote:

Yes Muslims should be treated as a special case in the same way judiasm and other religions which are directly tied to a governemental body should be treated as special cases. We dont bend over backwards for them, but we dont forget that it is not an internal affair with a religous minority, its a kick in the teeth to a number of countries.

Well, Catholicism is the ultra-example of that. Hasn't stopped it getting a great kicking lately. Perhaps it depends how big your economy and army are and what kind of weapons you have (Uncle Joe and the Popes' divisions).

I wouldn't have published the more offensive cartoons and the original paper was irresponsible (they already apologised a few days back I think?), but the expectation of the governments (and some of the more militant citizens) of Islamic countries that they can order governments in Europe to change their laws to suit Islamic mores better, basically bully and threaten to get their way over this issue is mad and is mainly what resulted in the escalation (reprinting the cartoons all over Europe). I have a gut instinct that you should not give in to a bully, you'll just get an even worse beating the next time.

Of course, I'm sure I'm open to the inevitable response of what's sauce for the goose given the US's efforts to promote democracy and change the political culture in Muslim countries. To that I'd say that use of external force, threats and bullying to change these countries is also not on, and the pace and direction of change is ultimately something that will have to be driven from within the countries themselves.

BlitzKrieg

Well, Catholicism is the ultra-example of that. Hasn't stopped it getting a great kicking lately. Perhaps it depends how big your economy and army are and what kind of weapons you have (Uncle Joe and the Popes' divisions).

But Catholicism is not tied directly into the legal/political system of European countries (not 100% on Italy but i'm sure its not tied directly into the legal system) unlike say some Middle easten countries where Islam is not only the majority religion but the basis and policy of the entire legal system. Yes to us it can appear barbaric. But looking down on it and gibbering on that they should adopt our ideals and attitude will only push them further away.

I have a gut instinct that you should not give in to a bully, you'll just get an even worse beating the next time.

I agree, dont give into a bully. but if the reason the bully is bullying you is because you keep singing "smokers die younger" when you pass him in the schoolyard, well maybe you shouldnt sing it.

Whistle Blower

Suff wrote:

Sure , I delebretly used that term to see reactions on the board.
my point..... people will react to that as more offensive than a picture that insults Muhammad/Christ/Moses (PBUT)

forget the term freedom of speech..no one is against it, the problem lies in the "idea/ image/concept" that is being portrayed in the published images.

another thing...what is the idea, reason behind publishing such images?
what's the message?

Here is the message we have freedom to speech, we have freedom to slag each other and do so without the threat of death...The Holocaust is not a joking point as Millions died at the hands of the Nazi's and today a lot of Arab(Islamic) Cultures pump more hatred and propaganda that the Nazi's ever did...

This is Western Europe, we are liberal and FREE and not oppressed under a Insular Hardcore Dictaorial government or Faith, if you don't like it go back to Syria and listen to the indoctornation about destroying the West, the Zionist Pigs etc and watch the public Barbaric executions as at the end of the day a cartoon is what it is as we dont go out and blow ourselves up in the name of Jesus or God Almightly...

GET A GRIP!

Whistle Blower

Suff wrote:

freedom of speech is completly different this is a insensitive, attack, vulgar, insulting, ignorance mocking of a religious Icon.

freedom of speech is a term for something that does not exist

I am angry and insulted but I would not rush out to burn a Danish flag!

How is Mohammed an Icon, explain this because I certainly dont seem him as one and from looking at his life and the Fables, he did'nt exactly do anything for anyone and instilled the seed of hatred more than Peace or Compassion which Islam does not have.!!

Captain Trips

Whistle Blower wrote:

Here is the message we have freedom to speech, we have freedom to slag each other and do so without the threat of death...The Holocaust is not a joking point as Millions died at the hands of the Nazi's and today a lot of Arab(Islamic) Cultures pump more hatred and propaganda that the Nazi's ever did...

Indeed. Jermey Clarkson got into a tiny bit of trouble when he did the Nazi salute and said "Ve vill build fan belts that vill last a thousand years" on an episode of Top Gear a few months ago. It was funny but sort of not so in Germany where it could apparently have him arrested.

But, that said, people are welcome to make fun of Hitler, or The Pope, George Bush, the Dalai Lama in our culture - whether it's funny or not is for people to decide but it doesn't mean that you occupy a non-related adminstration building in the Gaza Strip (the EU building) at GUNPOINT.

Respect being demanded on threat of execution rarely gets respect. That's why the US foreign policy (you are with or against us, shock andawe, etc., ) rarely gets moderates on side, and they are learning more how to use "soft" power. Respect being demanded on threat of closing diplomatic relations, withdrawing trade agreements and issuing death threats also will not get respect.

mike65

Well we've gone from marches and speeches to burning embassys in a few days, the bombs will be going off in the next fews days or some peoplewill get shot at the very least.

Welcome to the clash of civilisations?

Mike.