Mohammed cartoons

[Sanguinous Rex]

Words DO hurt though.They are the way we communicate from one mind to another mind. They are a most precious gift, and when someone verbally attacks you. it is painfull. I  do agree that some members of the muslim community are overreacting. One my of firm beliefs is that "People have the right to be wrong" that is, the right to hold a belief that the majority consider erroneous. The cartoonist has the right to draw tasteless cartoons. The muslim community has the right to protest PEACEFULLY.We may not all agree, but as they say, we should agree to disagree.If you find something you don't like, protest it in a law-abiding manner.
that is your right. but burning embassies aids NO ONE. When this is over, I hope we will all have learned something from this tragedy.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like this as well, the current world situation does not bode well... the Muslim Community is painting a VERY bad face, and it will continue to do so.  I am not being racist, I am simply stating facts.

[Nacho]

Many people says religion is bad. I say no, religion is a tool, you can use propperly, or not (killing anti-abortive doctors, or burning embassies...)

But it is clear that the amount of zeatolism in Islam is a problem. No complains whereas chiis are killed by hundreds, but the civil war starts when a mosque dome is destroyed. Crazy...

[bspeers]

Everyone who says the "west" can take it while arabs can't is full of it.  They are ignorant of the facts.  Newpapers and TV media continually censor stories and images they think would be offensive.  Each year an agency in the US publishes a list of the top censored stories, and they are always meaningful and intelligent, unlike these childish cartoons.

In the particular case of these anti-mohammed cartoons, the exact same newspaper refuses to print cartoons that would make fun of Christ for risk of "causing an outcry".

I'll repeat that.  3 years ago, the exact same Danish paper blocked satirical images of Christ.  Now they're big on "free speech" which isn't free and costs money.

Why?  Because they're hippocrates.  Excuse my terrible spelling.

The quote about "causing an outcry" is from one of the few factual articles that have come out since this debackle started.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=9771

News media censor all the time.  It's unavoidable.  Any crackpot with a stupid idea or offensive cartoon can't get in because there is limited space.  A handful of pages, or 48 minutes of air-time or what-have-you.

In fact, the only case in which this would be a "free speech" issue would be if we had free speech to begin with.  We don't.  We have speech for the rich, powerful and popular with a few scraps for the not-so-much.  Now if they were online cartoons that anyone could post and Muslims protested the internet, THAT would be stupid, not for muslims, but for the individuals doing the protesting.  Even the internet isn't a "free" domain--many sites are continually censored from search engines (like pro-Tibet sites on the chinese Google site, or Gay rights sites through various web-blockers), but at least there isn't a strict limit on publishing space.

Here is my opinion on the matter, flat-out:

There is no free speech.  If you want to fight for free speech, don't start by bashing muslims, that will get you nowhere.   I emphasize, the comics WERE published.

Start by fighting to get something published that actually WASN'T such as many stories about the US/Canada in Haiti, or maybe East Timor, or even Mumia Abu Jamal's writings.  They actually ARE censored, and unlike this Danish dude, they actually have some impact (other than the reaction by the muslim communities) and aren't just about some ignorant dude's desires to make fun of someone's religious/cultural views.

But I say don't even start there.  You're also not going to get far.  IF you actually care about free speech and not just about seeming self-righteous, do something significant.  Fight for "free" speech.  Instead of corporately owned media with the right to censor anything that doesn't fit their agenda, fight for media owned in public trust, not in corporate or state hands, but by an independent non-partisan non-profit body democratically owned, publically funded with a mandate to report the news of the majority.

It was Aristotle I believe who said that in any society, the rich are few and the poor many.  This means that democracy is rule by the poor (according to the Greeks from whom we get the word).  So fight for a media of the poor.  If you're not doing that, then I'm sorry to say, all your arguments for free speech will a) miss the bigger issue, and b) fail, because newspaper companies and governments will print whatever they want and only that, no matter how much you complain.

Some people may be intimidated out of publishing a cartoon, but that doesn't change the overall field.  It's still as centralized as it was.

Now if you excuse me, I have some offensive images of christ fallating Tony Blair I have to send to my local newspaper .

Not meant to personally target or offend anyone in this forum.  That was all general rambling.  Please at least read the hotlinked article.

[ManicMatt]

Fred: Glad you had some decent teachers then. I should explain further then. Time and time again the teachers were aware and didn't do enough to stop it. For YEARS. No one else would help me so in the end I had to help myself.

[Nacho]

The cartoons were published because in the previous number of the magazine, a humorist said that he feels he could orine in the bible if needed in a scene, but wouldn't do it on the quran for fear.

So, I agree, there is no freedom of speech.

But the discussion is: What will happen if you post that images of chist blowjobbing Tony Blair? Probably nothing, whereas your head will probably be rewarded with 1 million dollars iff you do the same with Mohammed.

That's the problem.

[big brother]

Doesn't the comic that features the police line-up poke fun at other major religions also (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism...)?

I'm a bit curious why we haven't heard an outcry from any members of these other religions? Perhaps those worshippers don't read Danish newspapers...or international news...or live around Muslims.

As far as the cartoons go, they're not as far out there as they could be (like some of the bestiality parallels suggested earlier)... I mean, a lot of them pose valid questions. The cartoon of the artist who's scared to draw the picture or the censor bar/niqaab switch. These are a form of social commentary. Even the Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. I would hope a mature person (Muslim or not) could look past the shock value of it and ask themselves, "Why would this cartoonist view Mohammed in such a way? Maybe it has something to do with the way certain followers of Islam have acted..." If a Muslim looks at it then grabs some Molotov cocktails and goes batshit insane, he's inadvertantly proving the cartoonist's point.

Some of them are self-referencing, talking about the newspaper staffs as trying to stir up a reaction, the "publicity stunt" one, or the "it's just a drawing" one.Ã, 

Personally, I think extremists have latched onto this as an excuse to wreak havoc. I'm sure many Muslims are embarrassed to share the same faith these hooligans profess.

Interesting quotes from this Reuters article http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060223/2006-02-23T175457Z_01_L2369100_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-RELIGION-VATICAN-MUSLIMS-DC.html

Saudi Arabia bans all public expression of any non-Muslim religion and sometimes arrests Christians even for worshipping privately. Pakistan allows churches to operate but its Islamic laws effectively deprive Christians of many rights.

"The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he [Monsignor Velasio De Paolis] said.

[lo_res_man]

*sighs* I just saw the strips, and lets just say they arn't funny, I am sorry to admit I did kind of like the one about how they are out of virgins, but I can see how they would get someones goat, Ã, that and the one with the prophet with horns, the one with the bomb on his head, the lineup, and ESPECIALLY the ones with the kid and the chalkboard. THAT one is uber stupid and the most offensive, even to me.
sometimes people are like a can of gas (petrol), it only only takes one spark, to ignite the heat. Democracy is not perfect, it is very fragile, a thing of spun glass. but we must preserve it but we must not destroy it, to preseve it. Let us work together to resolve this issue, but lets not destroy what little free speech we have in the process.

[Snarky]

I'm sick of people who claim that the cartoons aren't funny, or that they're badly drawn, as if that purely subjective judgment makes one whit of difference.

Secondly, a lot of those people have clearly not understood the cartoons at all. Several of them are not actually meant to be funny, they're just illustrations of the Prophet. Others are local Danish jokes that don't mean much to outsiders. One consists mostly of a rhyme that has been awkwardly translated into English.

Of the ones that should be generally accessible, I think the cartoon with the censor bar and veiled women is the best one. It's a clever and original idea, it's well drawn, and it makes a thought-provoking point.

The most controversial cartoon, with a bomb in the turban, isn't as creative, but it's a pretty typical political cartoon. The most interesting thing about it is that it's quite ambiguous, which means that given all the attention it's been getting, it should offer an opportunity to think about the relationship between Islam and violent Islamicism.

As for the ones you object to, lo_res_man, I think you've misunderstood several of them. The picture of Mohammed with "horns"... I'm pretty sure that's a halo in the form of a moon sickle. As for the one with the kid, I don't see how that's objectionable at all. Instead of showing the Prophet Mohammed, it shows a Danish kid of Arabic background called Mohammed. He's written his objection to the newspaper on the blackboard in Arabic, and he's wearing a soccer shirt. Thus showing the integration of Muslims in Denmark, and the multicultural nature of the society.

[lo_res_man]

Ok, I agree they are not as inflammitory as the have been taken to be, and it is sad. I don't say they are badly drawn, (well one is, but I agree somewhat whith that ones point) the bomb one, very well drawn, but it is a bit to hard to define. and that is part of the problem. One can take it almost anyway one chooses, and theres the rub. political cartoons should be NOT hard to define, they don't have to make there point with a sledge hammer, but they should be clear.Some muslims took it in a bad way.

[big brother]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but these weren't intended to be political cartoons as much as they were portraits of Mohammed (or how they viewed Mohammed) drawn by a number of relatively famous cartoonists.

[lo_res_man]

Well if thats the case they are even more nasty. would you like your religious (if any) founder derided by some cartoonest. I am not saying the reaction was appropriate, but I can see why it sparked such a horrible reaction. but to understand is not to forgive, this reaction was a quite uncalled for.

[m0ds]

I'm not religious, nor am I a religious expert - but Jesus's point was for us to be good and true to one another. Pretty simple, pretty easy to ask of most. I honestly can't take any religion that incites hate or hatred in its people seriously. If the prophet Mohammed is a good guy, I'm sure he too wouldn't want Muslims to act violently. And if he does, well - then you have a fucked up religion.

I agree it was probably wrong and stupid to print something like that in newspapers across Europe, but what happened to democracy? Hindunyanah burn the embassies! Hindunyanah die Americans!

There was a Mr Kipling advert in the UK once that depicted a mother giving birth in a nativity play much to the audiences horror, and then it turned out to be a girl, or something. 880 people were offended, wrote to Ofcom and the ad was banned.

THEY DIDN'T BURN DOWN EMBASSIES

I wanted to avoid this topic but it seems to be a hot one. I'm not racist, but those offended by the joke are in my opinion narrow minded, and sad. If you don't want to like it, don't like it, I'm sure Mohammed will favour you in disliking them...but you don't need to go mentol & chant & burn down embassies. That's called "mob" culture.

And it looks like that's transferred from the US to the middle-east. So shutup about hating the USA, you're just as bad - if not worse Perhaps they're Muslim-chavs who were just looking for a reason to vandalise & get on Sky News..? With things like the internet where almost everything is available & very little thought goes into what's said - you need to have an open mind these days. It may sound a little...well I don't know what....but I wish half the time the Eastern countries would shape up a little and reap some of the benefits of being a fully developed country. They might enjoy broadband, and might then get the joke. Do those people still beleive everything they see on TV? Though to be fair - a lot of people in the UK still do

[lo_res_man]

I'm not religious, nor am I a religious expert - but Jesus's point was for us to be good and true to one another. Pretty simple, pretty easy to ask of most.

I agree, and that, and my deep ponderings, convinced me of christs rightitude. Jesus, said to turn the other cheek, and these muslims (not ALL or even MOST) arn't doing that. Someone once said, people do more harm when they think there religion makes it right. its a sad sad world, lets hope (and if you want,pray) we all muddle through.

[HillBilly]

If the prophet Mohammed is a good guy, I'm sure he too wouldn't want Muslims to act violently. And if he does, well - then you have a fucked up religion.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some 300 warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered more than 3 times (1000 to 300) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement.

He was a warrior about ten years of his life. So yes, on some occasions, you could say he encouraged violence.

[m0ds]

Great.



(thanks for educating me a little Hillbilly )

[lo_res_man]

CAN"T WE ALL JUS GET ALONG?! :'(
sorry for shouting, it just makes me so sad
[cups head in in hands and weeps]

[SSH]

CAN"T WE ALL JUS GET ALONG?! :'(

Well, look what happened when Jack Nicholson said that in Mars Attacks...

[fred]

Hehe - Jack Nicholson, there's a prophet for ya!

The thing is out of hand, but luckily most Muslim governments have decided to try and stop the riots. I guess the riots are hurting their own societies more than ours.

The Turkish government has offered to negotiate between Europe and the Arab world, and have already stated that an official apology from the Danish government is required to get anywhere in the negotiations. So I guess their diplomacy is pretty much over before it began, because they will not get this apology - how can the Prime Minister apologize for something he didn't do? he has already expressed his regret on the matter.

bspeers said some important things about freedom of speech, but I think just the fact that he can point to a top 10 of the most important censored stories, proves him wrong in saying that we have no freedom of speech. Of course the western media have their own agendas, in Denmark, where I live, it's pretty easy to link each paper to a certain political party's agenda, although some of them span a few, and I guess it's the same in most other werstern countries (except perhaps Italy, where Berlusconi is in charge of most media). Some papers are liberal, some are conservative, some are more red, and so on. And of course the papers (and other media) compete and apply different standards for what makes the front page and what makes it in the paper at all. The difference is that we HAVE different papers, and people have a choice of what to read. As bspeers said, making papers for the poor is unusual, probably because it's a bad business, but there are plenty of papers for "the little man", the "poor, but no so poor they can't afford the paper", so to speak. Even the homeless have their own paper.

In contrast, some countries apply strict control of ALL national media (at least they try), and they put up noisetransmitters to prevent broadcasts fro other countries to reach their population. Belarus, for instance, is doing that at the moment. And they don't exactly post top 10s of the most important censored stories either, because it kinda defies the purpose. The western tradition of a free press means that even torture scandals within the army are eventually exposed, something that it would be suicide to write about in a dictatorship.

So in my opinion, the freedom is there. You can stand up for your opinions and start a paper with any agenda you like, but you will have to justify anything you lay out as facts, and you must be prepared to face the scorn and caricatures that your opponents make up. And of course that may get very tough, if you have nothing but "faith" in your opinions.

So I think the differences are big enough that I will counter bspeers statement (that anyone who says we have freedom of speech is a hypocrite) with, as usual, a question: Does power sometimes corrupt? How do we make sure, that if the ones we put in power are corrupted by their power, at least we find out about it and have them replaced?

sorry, that was two questions. Btw. I think bspeers is doing a great job at pointing our attention to those censored articles, and I'm glad nothing is holding him back in doing so.

[big brother]

The thing is out of hand, but luckily most Muslim governments have decided to try and stop the riots. I guess the riots are hurting their own societies more than ours.

I think it's sad when only MOST Muslim governments would merely DECIDE to TRY and stop riots. Whether or not the riots end, I'm still shocked at how little it takes for those people to resort to violence. If they want to act like a cranky infant, the rest of the world should treat them like one.

[Sanguinous Rex]

The Turkish government has offered to negotiate between Europe and the Arab world, and have already stated that an official apology from the Danish government is required to get anywhere in the negotiations. So I guess their diplomacy is pretty much over before it began, because they will not get this apology - how can the Prime Minister apologize for something he didn't do? he has already expressed his regret on the matter.

Until the Turkish government admits to its acts of Genocide on the Christian Armenian population that it committed both in the last century and in the beginning of this century, I don't know if that's a good idea.

If you ask most Turks, they will flat out deny any genocide happened, but it did, and there are millions of Armenians who have lost family who can attest to that.  Yet rather then saying "It happened, we're sorry, let's move on" they continue to deny any such thing happened.

So until they will admit to their own acts, I don't think they would be a very good intermediary between the Christian and Muslim worlds (Europe + Middle East).