Danish Newspaper Cartoons

[John83]

Were they slagging Mohammed though? - the one drawing I could find of the Prophet (see above) didn't look much like the cartoons - they reminded me more of the Ataytullohs in Iran.

Here's the most accurate depiction of Muhammed known at this time:

[Roverstillidie]

I'll spell it out for you so: "they" in the context of this debate have been the subject of same from day 1 of the rioting. THE RIOTING MUSLIMS! get with the programme.

And in the context of what's gone on over the last week or so their intent is very clear!

Millions of people were murdered during the Holocost - we all know the details, have seen the pictures and heard the stories.
Not a single hair on any human beings' hair was harmed by these cartoons

how the hell can you attempt to justify the reasoning you have quoted from Hamshahri

did four people not die as a result of the cartoons? or is it 6?

firstly 'they' is pushing very close to a generalisation of most muslims, when it is clearly a lunatic fringe of activists, not a mass movement.

secondly, the argument is very very simple t&e.

the hamshari argument is broadly this: "we as muslims are extremely offended by these cartoons at a time when eastern muslims feel under threat from the west and western muslims are being subjected to harassment. so to test the liberal 'free speech' arguments used to justify mocking mohammed and his followers we will publish cartoons mocking something westerners are going to be offended by, ie the holocoust.".

i think this is an acceptable arguement to make, although i would be more comfortable if it were a 'mock jesus' competition and left jews out of it.

put another way. if you dont have a problem with these cartoons the danes published, but do have a problem with a drug dealing loon in a suicide belt in london or the proposed iranian cartoons, you do not believe in free speech. end of.

as was said here, its easy to defend free speech if you agree with whats being said. the iranians have very deftly played their hand here.

[hamish]

The Observer in sunday had some excellent articles on this.

I posted them a few posts back, Pete.

[hamish]

Here's the most accurate depiction of Muhammed known at this time:

I posted them a few posts back John83.

[John83]

did four people not die as a result of the cartoons? or is it 6?

Six according to the Indo.

firstly 'they' is pushing very close to a generalisation of most muslims, when it is clearly a lunatic fringe of activists, not a mass movement.

There are few enough dissenting voices that you'd be forgiven for thinking that there's a lot of passive support for them.

"we as muslims are extremely offended by these cartoons at a time when eastern muslims feel under threat from the west and western muslims are being subjected to harassment. so to test the liberal 'free speech' arguments used to justify mocking mohammed and his followers we will publish cartoons mocking something westerners are going to be offended by, ie the holocoust."

...

if you ... have a problem with a drug dealing loon in a suicide belt in london or the proposed iranian cartoons, you do not believe in free speech. end of.

No, they really haven't. This is on the level of two eight year olds calling each other names in school.

I really hope the Jews are mature enough to deal with this like adults, rather than going around burning flags and buildings and making death threats. On the other hand, if they don't, that part of the world is going to be very lively for the forseeable future.

[Poor Student]

On the other hand, if they don't, that part of the world is going to be very lively for the forseeable future.

When has it not?

[Closed Account 2]

I think this is a fairly interesting piece on the whole thing.

[MOD EDIT: Don't quote entire stories.]

Its a bit crude and goes way over the top in some places, but I agree with a fair few of the points he makes. The self-censorship thing is interesting - it's like if it's too much hassle then papers won't print it. That to me has smacks of fear, but then with things like Van Gogh you can see their point of view.

I agree with the penultimate paragraph too, there is an element of a bi-cultural society.

[hamish]

Here are a couple of things I found on the Guardian website.

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

This might be worth reading - heard it on the BBC this mornng

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...704476,00.html

[Tired&Emotional]

did four people not die as a result of the cartoons? or is it 6?

firstly 'they' is pushing very close to a generalisation of most muslims, when it is clearly a lunatic fringe of activists, not a mass movement.

secondly, the argument is very very simple t&e.

the hamshari argument is broadly this: "we as muslims are extremely offended by these cartoons at a time when eastern muslims feel under threat from the west and western muslims are being subjected to harassment. so to test the liberal 'free speech' arguments used to justify mocking mohammed and his followers we will publish cartoons mocking something westerners are going to be offended by, ie the holocoust.".

i think this is an acceptable arguement to make, although i would be more comfortable if it were a 'mock jesus' competition and left jews out of it.

put another way. if you dont have a problem with these cartoons the danes published, but do have a problem with a drug dealing loon in a suicide belt in london or the proposed iranian cartoons, you do not believe in free speech. end of.

as was said here, its easy to defend free speech if you agree with whats being said. the iranians have very deftly played their hand here.

Roverstillidie, I have made my argument and don't want to end up repeating myself - as the risk of getting dizzy going around in circles, we can agree to disagree. You played devils advocate well!

I will keep watching this story though to see who makes the next move before i pick it up again...

[Hither green]

Millions of people were murdered during the Holocost - we all know the details, have seen the pictures and heard the stories. Not a single hair on any human beings' hair was harmed by these cartoons

I don't see what that's got to do with anything. If we've got freedom of speech then anything goes doesn't it? The argument goes that I'm not a Muslim or a believer in God, so why should I show him respect or reverence. Yes millions of people died in the holocaust, many died in the Ethiopian famine, but these were in far away countries and I didn't know any of them, why should I show reverence to them? I've got the right to say, print, publish whatever I like, no matter who I upset, because I've got freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

[Tired&Emotional]

I don't see what that's got to do with anything. If we've got freedom of speech then anything goes doesn't it? The argument goes that I'm not a Muslim or a believer in God, so why should I show him respect or reverence. Yes millions of people died in the holocaust, many died in the Ethiopian famine, but these were in far away countries and I didn't know any of them, why should I show reverence to them? I've got the right to say, print, publish whatever I like, no matter who I upset, because I've got freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

What is has got to do with is the fact that a large number of Muslims deny that the holocaust even happened. Therefore, by running a competition for Holocaust cartoons it's ridiculous contradiction.

They are blantantly trying to irratate and raise the stakes and then have the cheek to turn around and say it's under the banner of the Western philiosophy of free-speech (which is why they went on the rampage in the firstplace ). Do they think they're clever by running this competition? Do they think they are clever condemning freespeech with outlandish statements on placards etc. and then claiming to be excercising it by taking the pis.s out of something that they denied ever happened?

[Hither green]

What is has got to do with is the fact that a large number of Muslims deny that the holocaust even happened. Therefore, by running a competition for Holocaust cartoons it's ridiculous contradiction.

They are blantantly trying to irratate and raise the stakes and then have the cheek to turn around and say it's under the banner of the Western philiosophy of free-speech (which is why they went on the rampage in the firstplace ). Do they think they're clever by running this competition? Do they think they are clever condemning freespeech with outlandish statements on placards etc. and then claiming to be excercising it by taking the pis.s out of something that they denied ever happened?

I absolutely agree with you. What they're doing is exactly the same as what the Danes did, blatantly and deliberately go out to irritate under the pretence of freedom of speech. And on that basis, and that two wrongs don't make a right, I'm completely opposed to them printing such cartoons. That said, I'll be interested to see if any of the hypocritical western newspapers take up their challenge to reprint their cartoons, which they obviously won't as they're not aimed at the particular minority that they're trying rile.

[Terry]

. That said, I'll be interested to see if any of the hypocritical western newspapers take up their challenge to reprint their cartoons, which they obviously won't as they're not aimed at the particular minority that they're trying rile.

The French did so this morning

[Eire06]

The French did so this morning

They won a court ruling that allowed the to print all the original cartoons and even added one of their own, which takes up the entire front page - the headline 'Mohammed overwhelmed by the fundamentalists' with a caricature depicted the prophet with his head in his hands, remarking, “It’s hard to be loved by idiots.”

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/08/story243712.html

[Hither green]

The French did so this morning

I wasn't referring to the "freedom of speech" cartoons commissioned to insult the Muslim community but the "freedom of speech" cartoons Hamshahri are commissioning to insult the Jewish community. I'd be surprised if they'll ever be printed in Europe.

[anto1208]

with the right to freedom of speach comes a responsibility aswell that you dont abuse it , just because you have the right to print what you like does nt mean you have to , the mag in france today that has reprinted the 12 pics plus drawn a new one is just talking the **** there is no need for this at all

in this country you have a right to take a sh1te on the footpath but people dont do it .


if we start banning things where do we stop ? is everything deemed offensive to some one going to get banned ..i find ads for period pads offensive get them banned, i find ryan tubirty offensive get him banned ............allthought that does nt sound too bad an idea

[Tired&Emotional]

I absolutely agree with you. What they're doing is exactly the same as what the Danes did, blatantly and deliberately go out to irritate under the pretence of freedom of speech. And on that basis, and that two wrongs don't make a right, I'm completely opposed to them printing such cartoons. That said, I'll be interested to see if any of the hypocritical western newspapers take up their challenge to reprint their cartoons, which they obviously won't as they're not aimed at the particular minority that they're trying rile.

Well at least we agree on something!

But I don't think the initial publication in Denmark in Sept. 05 was intended to insult. However shortsighted we say it was now in hindsight, it was only because imams in that country went to the trouble of bringing them "home" to Muslim countries that people there knew about them. i think the cartoons were published in a general, Western-freedom-of-speech-way.

However I would definetley question the motivation of their republication in certain European countries in the last few days ...

[Tired&Emotional]

with the right to freedom of speach comes a responsibility aswell that you dont abuse it , just because you have the right to print what you like does nt mean you have to , the mag in france today that has reprinted the 12 pics plus drawn a new one is just talking the **** there is no need for this at all

in this country you have a right to take a sh1te on the footpath but people dont do it .


if we start banning things where do we stop ? is everything deemed offensive to some one going to get banned ..i find ads for period pads offensive get them banned, i find ryan tubirty offensive get him banned ............allthought that does nt sound too bad an idea

I agree with questioning the motivation of the Begian & French papers in reprinting them now, in the current climate but the political climate was different back in Sept!

The solution to this would be as complex as the problem. It's not really a clash of civilisations but a difference of viewpoint.

Do we, in the Western World ban all comic references to all religions? How would a law be clear-cut enough to direct interpretation - it can't be done!
Would we never be able to watch "Father Ted" again??

[Hither green]

Do we, in the Western World ban all comic references to all religions? How would a law be clear-cut enough to direct interpretation - it can't be done!

I agree that this isn't a clash of civilisations, despite the printing of these cartoons (or at least their reprinting) being a deliberate attempt to try to make it a clash of cultures by those with a political axe to grind. They could have gone out to annoy the Jewish community, or the Hindu community, or the Seikh community to show that those religions are incompatible with Western society but then they've no axe to grind against those communities.

It's true that a clear cut law with obvious boundaries would be difficult to write but perhaps it would be better than the current void where societies and part of societies can be divided by papers or politicians acting like they have carte blanche. If they can't exercise freedom of speech responsibly (as Jacques Chirac has just said) then perhaps they should be given a helping hand in making such decisions.

[jebus]

us westerners were naughty long before them and have done far more damage to the world, and thats worth remembering in this discussion.

Thats not relevant at all in my opinion, we ran the world single-handedly back then so obviously there would be mistakes made and idiots put in power, i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher and De Valera ( ) but I shudder to think, given what generally passes for justice and common decency in arab countries what kind of world we would be living in today had the history of the world turned out differantly and made them the dominant race. For one thing I don't think we'd have so many Left Wing Nazis running around with their usual spiel of 'everyone's allowed an opinion, but if it differs from ours in the slightest than you're just a bigoted, homophobic Daily Mail reader', well okay in that sense it would have been a good thing.