Most of you might have heard about the danish newspaper Jyllands Posten, posting drawings of the prophet Muhammed, and the huge reaction from the muslim country's. Personally i think the muslim's have really overracted, its 12 unharmful drawings! And yes i know you cant draw Muhammed following the Koran, but this is Denmark and they have freedom of speech, which meens you can express yourself freely. What do you think?
http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php...=381&Itemid=74
World trade centre, Bali, Israel, London, Madrid, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Al Qaida and they get offened by 12 drawings.
j'accuse!
This should be in the Current Affairs forum.
Its a bit of an over-reaction but there are a lot of religous fanatics out there.
The funniest thing for me is that some Muslim group have called for today to be a "Day of Anger" for Muslims all over the world. I presume that means Muslims everywhere will go around shaking their fists, growling and maybe even give the dog a kick.
I better be careful or I might have a fatwa taken out on me.
I think the Muslims have a right to be offended. It's not that long ago people in Ireland would have taken their religion seriously enough that such drawings would have been hugely controversial, so I don't see how we can now turn around and call them unharmful (Originally Posted by ccfcman
Harmless, maybe?
).
One of the (many) big criticisms of the US is that it doesn't care much about local culture, which is why they end up acting inappropriately at so many stages. This is pretty much the exact same.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can express yourself freely. I can't set up an internet site in your name calling you a paedophile and claim freedom of speech and that I can express myself freely. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities to use that freedom appropriately. I would have said (admittedly with hindsight) that it would have been fairly obvious that some of the cartoons would have caused offence.
Incidentally, I would also say that it's grossly insulting to say that, because a small minority of Muslim extremists have been responsible for some atrocities, that Muslims in general have no right to act offended about anything.
Couldn't have said it better myself....these cartoons are traditional in Western world printed press they have to respect that! Will they be telling us not to eat pigmeat or drink alcohol next just because it is not allowed under the Koran?? If they want us to respect their traditions they must be prepared to accept ours. Where are they going to draw the line...???
"Inflatable hammers and Leprechaun suits, & a chorus of "Here we go" or Olé, Olé"....
That's a ridiculous comparison to make. This example is
a) an attack on a persons civil rights
b) libellous
The cartoons issue is traditional journalism, in a secular country being questioned by a completely different religious point of view....
They are in no position to call foul on a different way of life! Are they going to dictate their belief on everyone?????!!
Last edited by Tired&Emotional; 03/02/2006 at 3:21 PM.
"Inflatable hammers and Leprechaun suits, & a chorus of "Here we go" or Olé, Olé"....
The Daily star reprinted the cartoon in todays paper does that mean we are now on there hitlist?
Or will the Star workers be targeted?
Does anyone else think that it was irresponsible of the star to do this?
or is it freespeech at its best?
The star in Engalnd didnt print it so it is solely an irish star issue
The printing of cartoons depicting Muhammad in this manner is all about freedom of expression, freedom of speech and religous freedom. It is not so long ago that Monthy Pythons Life of Brian was banned in this country and we all thought that was repressive. This country was repressed then just like all the sexual, religous minorities, women etc that are currently repressed in the majority of Islamic countries are now. Islam in the form currently expressed by a lot of Muslims throughout the world is a repressive religous ideology that deserves to be challenged (just like some of the christian fundameltalists.)I think the Muslims have a right to be offended. It's not that long ago people in Ireland would have taken their religion seriously enough that such drawings would have been hugely controversial, so I don't see how we can now turn around and call them unharmful (
One of the (many) big criticisms of the US is that it doesn't care much about local culture, which is why they end up acting inappropriately at so many stages. This is pretty much the exact same.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can express yourself freely. I can't set up an internet site in your name calling you a paedophile and claim freedom of speech and that I can express myself freely. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities to use that freedom appropriately. I would have said (admittedly with hindsight) that it would have been fairly obvious that some of the cartoons would have caused offence.
Incidentally, I would also say that it's grossly insulting to say that, because a small minority of Muslim extremists have been responsible for some atrocities, that Muslims in general have no right to act offended about anything.
They have a right to be offended if they want but they don't have a right to threaten violence against people and enact violence becauses someone mocks their god.
You cannot have freedom of expression without religous freedom and vice versa. Unfortunately a lot of Islamic countries do not recognise this right.
Cork City FC
Islam is a religion incompatible with western democratic value!!!
Well technically so is roman catholicism and a whole raft of the bible protestant branches of the christian family.
I do think though there is a straight contradiction of rights here between the right not to be offended and the right to offer offence.
I don't think you can properly defend the right to free speech, freedom of expression or eevn freedom of thought unless you're willing, as I am, to defend the right to give offence.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
To the best of my knowledge Jesus is regarded as a prophet in Islam. If that is the case why was there not an such an outcry from Muslims when the Life of Brian was made.
Anyone is entitled to protest against something they are offended by but it doesn't mean governments should curtail newspapers' freedom to publish it. Denmark is a secular country and shouldn't have to treat Islam any different than it does Christiantity or any other religon. If Muslims in Denmark are offended by this then boycott the newspaper.
Similarly if Muslims in Ireland are offended by the reprinting of the cartoons in the Star then by all means boycott the Star but I would defend their right to publish it. Peaceful protest by all means but violent attacks are not acceptable.
"I'd rather play in front of a full house than an empty crowd" Johnny Giles
I can understand the Muslims being offended, which is not to say I think the paper should apologise. Where do you draw the line? What if Islam was to ban the unholy practice of Journalism?
What's truely stupid here is the call for a boycott on Danish goods. Can you imagine people in England calling for a boycott on all Irish goods because the Indo published some cartoons mocking Poppy Day or something?
Strikes me as bizarre that I'm the first person to point out that the actions of the fanatics responsible for those events (and organisations) are not representative of Islam as a whole. They're simply representative of the fantatics. Catholicism has plenty of fanatics too, people are just more inclined to recognise them for what they are.
Has sectarianism against Islam become so endemic people don't even recognise it any more? Because that "they" to me is sectarian. Is it any wonder muslims are hacked off?
adam
It was an unfortunate coincidence that the story broke on the day that Nick Griffin was cleared in Britain, giving a platform for his claim that Islam is an 'evil faith' to be repeated on national news.
Anti-Islamic sectarianism is whipped up by extremists on both sides and is welcomed by extremists on both sides.
whats was the big racket about. I didnt think the pictures were that bad. Not as bad as some of the drawings muslims do about Israelis
I'm trying to get my head round all this. One part of me remembers Ireland only too well when the churches were a pain in the arse to the youth of Ireland in the 60s and 70s - there representatives were down on you if you weren't religious enough, played "soccer", thought sex should be enjoyable instead of just for procreation within marriage etc etc and dared to consider anything that didn't fit into their idea of what should should compromise Irish society.
Dissent was stamped on in the schools, in sport and in the media.
That's why I have a knee-jerk reaction TBH to Muslim radicals threatening "Westerners" (for want of a better term) but I do agree if they're offended then don't buy goods from Denmark or any other place they consider supporting this "offensive" cartoons.
I mean I won't buy Irish newspapers 'cos their sports journalists seem to have no fcuking idea about the EL and there is a terrible ignorance and often bias in their reportage.
With regard to satire where do you draw the line though? Maybe there should be tension with regard to these cartoons - isn't that what satire is about? -"pushing the envelope" so to speak.
Another part of me does see how they can be offended but the Muslim opinion that representation/drawings etc of Muhammad is not allowed applies only to Muslims doesn't it?? If a non-Muslim cartoonist does it then how can it be a sacrilege??
I'm all over the shop about this TBH and debating it to myself.
There's another angle. For so long the West has bombed, robbed and interfered with areas containing Muslim peoples. They have created countries like Iraq and left many peoples in poverty through exploitation. Hardly a surprise that people from former colonies come back to the "mother countries" to gain employment because of that poverty and suffer the inevitable consequences of discrimination. sh!te jobs etc. If they are truly part of our society do we take their beliefs into account in our media and act accordingly.
The more I think of it the more I am confused TBH.
Generally speaking, my attitude to religion - any religion - is when they bellyache about matters like bloody cartoons or "The life of Brian" - fcuk them.
But then that's just my past experiences colouring my opinion.
The maybe I'm reading too much Eamon McCann in Hot Press.
Maybe you folks can enlighten me.
Remember Salman Rushdie, whose book The Satanic Verses was in conflict with the Koran. The then Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeni issued a fatwah against the writer. Well, is some lunatic of a mullah going to do the same against Western media on top of this ridiculous "Day of Anger". People seem to forget that the real conquest of Islam is to take over the world with their religion. With suicide bombers being predominantly muslim, is it any wonder that a Danish newspaper published the cartoons? My brother in London said over the summer after 7/7 that any muslim that is in Britain with the purpose of undermining Western values should be kicked out of the country. We should not bow to their tyranny. Long Live Free Press!!
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!!
Recently enough I think the Irish Times had some urine extraction picture of the Last Supper. Don't remember what it was but some people wrote in complaining about sacrilege etc. Not sure where I stand on this but just pointing out Muslims are not alone in sharing outrage at such things and there are still those in Ireland who will feel some ire when something similar happens involving Christian imagery.
Yeah PS - was that the same as the art exhibition in New York where some artist put together a picture of Jesus using elephant faeces or something like that.
This topic is awful hard to work out. I hate to see bullying - regardless what religion it comes from - I wonder how many Muslim really give a sh!t about this other than those we see demonstrating.
I'm quite sure nearly all Muslims might be offended by these cartoons but how many wish to do what is happening in Palestine??
Thunderblaster - I can see where your coming from to TBH. Nobody, but nobody, has the right or justification to blow up innocent people in London or anywhere else for that matter - especially since most people in the UK were against the Iraqi war.
No doubt about it the atrocities against people in the Middle East by the West are cause for genuine anger by Muslims but there is no justification killing innocent people.
The fatwah against Rushdie - an overrated suthor IMHO - was also unjustified.
This world is so complicated at times.
Isn't it amazing too that one one side we have Bush The Lesser - a rich, spoilt kid from a rich family and on the other side Bin Laden - a rich, spoilt kid from another rich family - "leaders" of their respective "idiologies" - with millions of lemmings supporting each of them.
Bring back socialism I say.
Yes it was unfortunate timing, and had it managed to hit the headlines a few days earlier it would have hit the debate over here on the incitement to religious hatred laws.
Personally I've a lot of sympathy with the Muslims on this one, in fact I'd be in favour of them extending the blasphemy laws to other religions rather than dismantling them. I rarely agree with anything this government says but totally agreed with Jack Straw saying he supports freedom of speech but that didn't mean it was open season on religious taboos. Couldn't agree more.
Also funny how all the secular bunch are outraged at the muslim reaction in boycotting Danish goods. It seems that the biggest insult for a Muslim is to depict Mohammed, whereas the biggest insult for a westerner is to interfere with market forces. Seems they worship Allah and we worship money.
"...and it's Charlie Chaplin on the wing..."
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks