Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

mike65

They going nuts is the Islamic world over some cartoons published in Denmark last October (yes it was months ago!). It was only when the pictures were published in Norway that the middle east noticed and now thanks to plenty of fire stoking from the Iranian government that its all getting a bit silly. Today newspapers across Europe published the images though not here yet.

http://www.uriasposten.net/pics/JP-011005-Muhammed-Westerga.jpg

I was just watching the BBC news and they ran a feature without showing any pix just text. It looks like they are running scared.

Should the press in a secular democracy be free to publish what it sees fit so long as it does'nt break the laws of the land? I think so.

Mike.

flogen

Interesting; the argument being that drawing characatures (sp?) of Mohammad is blasphemous while the papers are arguing that it's not an insult to Islam nor is it a crime etc.

It does seem to be getting horribly out of hand although I hope the media don't go overboard and go on the defencive. They should be free to poke fun at whatever is fair game, once they don't do it just to annoy. I can imagine that a trashy tabloid here would do it just to wind the Middle Eastern protesters up; you can see the right wingers drawing insulting pictures saying "You terrorists can't tell us what to do!" etc.

Hobbes

I don't know how you could take that picture of anything but offensive. It implies that the core of the religon is based on terrorism.

It would be like posting a picture of Jesus screwing children, because a few priests have been caught fiddling children.

Should the press in a secular democracy be free to publish what it sees fit so long as it does'nt break the laws of the land? I think so.

I don't think the press should be allowed to post crap that promotes intolerance of others.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

I don't know how you could take that picture of anything but offensive. It implies that the core of the religon is based on terrorism.

Well you could argue that some of the core of the religion and early history of same is based on religious expansionism/violence. While it can be seen as offensive, the reaction is way over the top.

It would be like posting a picture of Jesus screwing children, because a few priests have been caught fiddling children.

Partially true, though as far as is we know jesus wasn't a kiddie fiddler, mohammad was a warrior. That's as big a stretch as your comparison TBH. If you had a picture of JC dressed as a crusader walking into Iraq beside George Dubya, maybe that would be closer and I don't think we would have bomb threats, or the vatican closing diplomatic relations with anyone over it, do you? You might have gotten a bad reaction from Christians in the past, but most christians nowadays have left the middle ages behind.

I don't think the press should be allowed to post crap that promotes intolerance of others.

The press and cartoonists, in particular do it all the time, if you're sensitive enough. If you want a world were the only cartoon you get in newspapers is charlie brown then I suppose that's fine too.

Snickers Man

I have a memory, dating back to the 70s, of the British Christian Clean-up-TV campaigner Mary Whitehouse taking a succesful case against a gay magazine for 'blasphemous libel' after it published a story, or a poem or something in which a Roman soldier commits necrophile acts on Christ's body after it was taken from the cross.

The publishers argued that blasphemous libel was such an out of date law that the case should not proceed and that it only protected Christianity and in a multifaith country like 70s Britain it should be considered obsolete. The judge argued that far from there being no law to protect religions they should all be protected and the case proceeded.

Whitehouse won.

So if these cartoons were published in Britain they could probably be the subject of successful litigation.

Wibbs

I have a memory of that too. I thought that she lost the final case though. Drink fried memory's a bugger though . I agree, if it's seen as offensive, boycott and sue away. The problem is when they start getting violent. Same goes for those anti abortion nutbags(esp in the US). I may agree with some of their points, but they lose all credibility with me when they get violent.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Partially true, though as far as is we know jesus wasn't a kiddie fiddler, mohammad was a warrior.

Being a warrior does not equate to being a terrorist. How you got "Warrior" out of that picture is beyond me.

People are saying its being blown out of proportion, but then you are trying to impose it on your own values which is why many people would think that.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Being a warrior does not equate to being a terrorist. How you got "Warrior" out of that picture is beyond me.

Well could validly argue that he was considered a terrorist in his own time by tribes and cities that didn't agree with him. No bad thing necessarily. Others that have been admired by many over the centuries would have had the same accusation. That's not the issue. What's at issue is the ability of the media to print something without fear of their lives being taken. Their wallets being screwed in a court of law I have no quibble with.

People are saying its being blown out of proportion,

Nope I'm saying that the type of reaction is what is out of proportion, not the insult. BTW the example mike65 posted isn't the most dodgy either. I'm not debating the insult, like the insult in the example by Snickers Man, but the response.

but then you are trying to impose it on your own values which is why many people would think that.

Well if my values consist of a measured non violent reaction to something I consider offensive then guilty as charged, m'lud. Do you consider a violent knee jerk response to the free press* as being OK then? As I said, if it offends thee, sue and boycott. When you threaten bombs and death, I have an issue. If that makes me a right wing "culturalist", then so be it. I'm sure cultural relativistism, while great in principle, is of great comfort to the cartoonists and publishers in hiding and in fear of their lives.


*I know Hobbes, I know. That's another debate altogether and I agree with your take on this before BTW.

flogen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672642.stm
The owner of 'France Soir' doesn't seem to think the cartoons publication was the right thing to do;

The editor of a French newspaper that printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has been sacked.

Jacques Lefranc was dismissed by the owner of France Soir, as his paper became embroiled in a developing row between Muslims and the European press.

Hobbes

flogen wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672642.stm
The owner of 'France Soir' doesn't seem to think the cartoons publication was the right thing to do;

Wasn't that a different cartoon though?

Wibbs

I suspect he's trying to cover his ass in fairness and minimise the fallout, especially after all the hullabaloo and threats etc. I'd probably do the same in his shoes TBH. This seems the quickest way out for his paper.

Snickers Man

Wibbs wrote:

I have a memory of that too. I thought that she lost the final case though.

Not according to the Beeb.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Wasn't that a different cartoon though?

I think there were seven of the originl ones that caused the problem. The bomb in the turban one wasn't the "worst" either. Mohammad in heaven turning back bombers because they had run out of virgins was another. They're out there on the web. I won't post them here for obvious reasons. The wiki article has a full breakdown IIRC.

Wibbs

Snickers Man wrote:

Not according to the Beeb.

I knew it, the memory's shot . That said can you imagine if someone printed a cartoon of Mohammad in a homosexual encounter? Whooooo. I don't think it would stop at a law suit. Sheesh t'would be mad altogether.

luckat

Wasn't it President Abraham Lincoln who defined freedom of expression by saying that if someone stood outside his house screaming and shouting that the president was this that and the other, the only recourse he would have would be to stand and screech at the other guy that *he* was every kind of rascal?

Thing is, yes, the papers were rude to print the cartoons. But it's a lot ruder to threaten to kill people in response.

flogen

Hobbes wrote:

Wasn't that a different cartoon though?

I don't know, I haven't seen any of the cartoons, just heard discriptions of them.

Some sounded tame (like one where there are numerous Gods sitting, with one saying "relax Mohammed, we all get charactured here" or something similar.) and others sounded a bit more risky (such as the other which depicted Mohammed with a bomb for a turbin. )

Wibbs

luckat wrote:

Thing is, yes, the papers were rude to print the cartoons. But it's a lot ruder to threaten to kill people in response.

Nail on head.

Suff

I agree with Hobbes, it is rude and insulting. but no reason for death threaths at all.

the_dart

"I don't know how you could take that picture of anything but offensive. It implies that the core of the religon is based on terrorism"

We could have guessed that the token left-winger would find that offensive. However if he had been shown one of the many posters around offending President Bush etc., he'd have said there's nothing wrong with it.

Seems to me that Hobbes would allow it in one case and dissallow it in the other. - Whats the word for that? - Hypocrit?

RE*AC*TOR

The picture with the bomb in the turban, is a valid observation. The Koran is being interpretted by certain people in a way that encourages them to use lots of bombs. A picture of Jesus riding around on horse back with a big sword would have been apt for the crusades. It doesn't promote intolerance of anyone. I'm sure lots of crazy religions are intolerant of almost everything, so unless you plan to do nothing for the rest of your life you're bound to insult somebody. The problem here is the reaction, not the action. I just hope that the reaction is of a vocal minority, and it isn't the majority that are completely nuts. We'll wait and see I guess.

*edit* and by the way, there are plenty of overtly anti-semetic cartoons in publications in certain islamic countries, so what's good for the goose etc.

Hobbes

the_dart wrote:

However if he had been shown one of the many posters around offending President Bush etc., he'd have said there's nothing wrong with it.

Did you compare Bush to a Religous figure?

Having problems logging in on the other account?

mike65

It may not be coincidence that the owner of France Soir which sacked an editor is French of Egyptian decent.

The latest is Islamic Jihad threatening the EU office in Gaza with demolition.

'We' use the cartoon 'they' respond with a gun.

Mike.

the_dart

"Did you compare Bush to a Religous figure? "

Nice dodging the question but the question is still ont he table. I think "RE*AC*TOR" made a good point aswell, a point which you chose to ignore. Yuo seem to be very selective in what you read and I reckon you should read over the past 4 posts before this one and perhaps respond to what RE*AC*TOR was trying to telling you.

the_dart

And as for:

"Having problems logging in on the other account?"

Are you talking about me? If so then you have jumped in without thinking and perhaps are mistaking me for someone else and perhaps by sending me a mesage explaining what you meant by that I can clear up your misunderstanding.

Hobbes

the_dart wrote:

Nice dodging the question but the question is still ont he table.

There are currently 3-4 threads on this topic. Its already been covered in Humanities.

I think "RE*AC*TOR" made a good point aswell

Not really and as I said its covered in other threads. But to answer your question and Reactors is no they are not comparible.

If you were to post a cartoon making fun of the people who died in 9/11 or a cartoon about how the holocaust never happened and you will see the same response from the West.

Just because having our religon made fun of doesn't bother us doesn't mean it automatically equates to another culture.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

If you were to post a cartoon making fun of the people who died in 9/11 or a cartoon about how the holocaust never happened and you will see the same response from the West.

You keep saying that, but do you honestly think embassies would be withdrawn, flags would be burnt and people would going into hiding on fear of death from the likes of French, Irish or German Christians/buddhists or Jews? So I'm afraid in the real world, it's an entirely different threat level we're talking about here.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

You keep saying that, but do you honestly think embassies would be withdrawn, flags would be burnt and people would going into hiding on fear of death from the likes of French, Irish or German Christians/buddhists or Jews? So I'm afraid in the real world, it's an entirely different threat level we're talking about here.

Actually it wasn't me who said it to begin with although I do agree with the premise.

However 9/11 I recall an artist in the US setting up an exhibition which had cut-out silloettes of people falling down a wall to depict what happened. The exhibition was shut down and he had threats on his life over that.

I can certainly numerous similar "over reactions" because of this incident.

boardy

Hobbes wrote:

I don't think the press should be allowed to post crap that promotes intolerance of others.

They have a word for that: censorship.
And 'crap' is your interpretation. I may find it amusing. And I have the right to view it in a free society.

When I first heard about all this hullabaloo (and in an attempt to understand the irrational response), I imagined caricatures of our 'big guy' (JC) and decided that it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest.

What should editors do in the future? Contact Muslim leaders in their own country to find out if a certain article/cartoon will be deemed offensive?

Seems that your political correctness has boundaries.

Hobbes

boardy wrote:

They have a word for that: censorship.
And 'crap' is your interpretation. I may find it amusing. And I have the right to view it in a free society.

We have a free society? News to me. Try posting in a newspaper for a request for a child to have sexual relations with. Or posting that all Blacks should be killed. Or how about walking through town a T-Shirt with porn printed on it. Or post in a paper where to get an abortion in England?

We have and always had censorship in Ireland. Don't confuse with free speech. "Free speech" mantra doesn't give you carte blanch to be intolerant of other cultures (granted you can say the same about the Muslims protesting). Also News Medias are not free speech platforms and have never been.

What should editors do in the future? Contact Muslim leaders in their own country to find out if a certain article/cartoon will be deemed offensive?

You mean they wouldn't be able to cop that from all the history of violence related to these kinds of incidents?

secret_squirrel

Snickers Man wrote:

So if these cartoons were published in Britain they could probably be the subject of successful litigation.

Afaik the specific UK blasphemy law is still Christianity only. So that cartoon wouldnt fall under it.

However I imagine it would fall under the new law they brought in last year or so covering Promoting Religious/Racial intolerance.

boardy

Hobbes wrote:

We have a free society? News to me.

Yes, we are very repressed here especially when compared to life in a Muslim country.

Hobbes wrote:

Try posting in a newspaper for a request for a child to have sexual relations with. Or posting that all Blacks should be killed.

Are your analogies meant to draw protests for you to refute?

Hobbes

boardy wrote:

Yes, we are very repressed here especially when compared to life in a Muslim country.

Depends on which Muslim country you refer to.

Are your analogies meant to draw protests for you to refute?

No. Your welcome to agree with them.

boardy

Hobbes wrote:

Depends on which Muslim country you refer to.

I was trying to think of the least repressive Muslim country, but couldn't name it.

If we ban cartoons then what's next? Maybe remove piggy banks from banks. Wait a second; they've done that already:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/25/113304.shtml

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

We have a free society? News to me. Try posting in a newspaper for a request for a child to have sexual relations with. Or posting that all Blacks should be killed. Or how about walking through town a T-Shirt with porn printed on it. Or post in a paper where to get an abortion in England?

Fair point. BTW I think T-shirt hell.com would have covered at least a few of the above.:D

Depends on which Muslim country you refer to.

Can you give an example of an Islamic country that has less press restrictions than our own?

mike65

There is'nt one, Islamic States as opposed to states with an Islamic population in them, are run by the clergy either directly or by proxy.

I just read that UK media are publishing the pictures in a very particular context acording to the Guardian.

Mike.

Snickers Man

secret_squirrel wrote:

Afaik the specific UK blasphemy law is still Christianity only. So that cartoon wouldnt fall under it.

However I imagine it would fall under the new law they brought in last year or so covering Promoting Religious/Racial intolerance.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that the ruling of the judge in the Whitehouse/Gay News case that the law should be interpreted as applying to all religions instead of being removed because of obsolescence might have some bearing on any Muslim bringing a case for blasphemous libel.

But I really don't know.

Freddie59

Wibbs wrote:

I think there were seven of the originl ones that caused the problem. The bomb in the turban one wasn't the "worst" either. Mohammad in heaven turning back bombers because they had run out of virgins was another. They're out there on the web. I won't post them here for obvious reasons. The wiki article has a full breakdown IIRC.

I've seen them...And, as a Catholic, I've seen/heard worse about God, the Pope, etc. Why won't you post them? We are having this discussion on a forum which is due to the fact the we live in a democracy. We may not always agree with all things, but we must be free to discuss them.:mad:

Freddie59

boardy wrote:

Yes, we are very repressed here especially when compared to life in a Muslim country.

Of course we are. That's why every one here enjoys the following (including yourself):

1. We can feel free to express their views without fear of repercussion.

2. Women are free to dress as they choose and free to make decisions about their lives.

3. Sons and daughters are cherished equally.

4. We may protest when required/feel the need.

5. We are allowed to develop our own opinions (it's called a democracy)

6. Take or leave the instructions of their church/religion.

I take it all of these are allowed in Muslim countries?

Fair point Boardy. I'll take the West ahead of Islam every time.

Freddie59

Wibbs wrote:

Can you give an example of an Islamic country that has less press restrictions than our own?

All of them.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

We have a free society? News to me. Try posting in a newspaper for a request for a child to have sexual relations with.

Are you saying this is normal practice in a Muslim country?

stuartfanning

If you want to see all the cartoons, decent size pictures, check the link below.

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html

Pictures censored by Digital Spy.

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

the_dart

These guys are nuts. I saw on Sky News this morning that they stroemd the Danish embassy in Jakarta and started burning flags etc. I also saw they had a protest outside the BBC in London. One of them held a placard:

"Butcher those who mock Islam"

- Hobbes, are these the kind of Islamic actions that you support? Because any sane person would take the view that there is something seriously wrong with these people.

flogen

The london protest is pretty harsh too

Kill those who insult Islam etc., I don't think the pictures were the right thing to do, but the reaction seems to be ten times worse.

Hobbes

Freddie59 wrote:

Are you saying this is normal practice in a Muslim country?

No I am saying that there is no such thing as Free Speech. There are just varying levels of what is acceptable speech.

A very good example is Abortion. You are not allowed under Irish law to discuss where someone can get an abortion in a public place (eg. Newspaper). Likewise see how many rights a woman has who says she is planning to travel for an abortion and doesn't fit the critieria that allows her to travel. Or in delivering a child the mothers life is not considered even if there is a chance the child may not live after being delivered.

So all you free speeching spouters, prehaps you should look into what Free speech actually means.

- Hobbes, are these the kind of Islamic actions that you support? Because any sane person would take the view that there is something seriously wrong with these people.

As I have already said I do not condone the use of violence as a reaction to this cartoon. That said only an idiot would of assumed that nothing would of happened along these lines.

Take a look at the Miss World pagent in Nigeria. Numerous people died and a woman now lives in fear of her life in another country because of 1 sentance in a newspaper meant in jest.

Incidently, any joy finding those pages refuting what I posted on news/media? Seem to have given up on that.

flogen

Hobbes wrote:

Incidently, any joy finding those pages refuting what I posted on news/media? Seem to have given up on that.

Please keep the thread on topic; the dart's decision to ignore a point made on another thread has no bearing on his comments here; any failure on his part to engage in serious discussion will though and does not need to be pointed out to anyone.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

As I have already said I do not condone the use of violence as a reaction to this cartoon.

Yes you did in fairness. Some seem to miss that though. Good to repeat.

That said only an idiot would of assumed that nothing would of happened along these lines.

Take a look at the Miss World pagent in Nigeria. Numerous people died and a woman now lives in fear of her life in another country because of 1 sentance in a newspaper meant in jest.

Basically(and correct me if I'm wrong), what your saying is that Muslims can be a load of reactionary violent types and you should choose to print or not print on that basis. Some pressure group they got goin' there.

flogen

My stand on the whole issue is this;
Yes, all religions face satirical cartoons from time to time; they may complain but they don't threaten life.
However, while all religions are against blasphemous statements, no big religions, excluding Islam have a rule against the drawing of their God. From what I understand, it doesn't matter if it's an insulting drawing, you're not supposed to do it full stop.
Now, if the cartoon (the bomb-turbin one) was saying that Islam is infact a terrorism-based religion, it's a terribly ignorant conclusion to make and not one that any responsible newspaper should condone. However, and this is what the claim seems to be, if the image was a metaphor for the use of the religion by extremists to mask their terrorist outrages then that's a fair comment to make but it should be one done with respect of the rules of the religion; surely these cartoonists and satarists are clever enough to make their point without having to show dis-respect to the basic beliefs of a religion? It's hard to compare these drawings to Christian-based ones as there is nothing in the bible that forbids the drawing of Jesus christ or God (whatever it looks like).
All in all though; the reaction has been absurd and if the intention of the cartoon was to highlight the use of Islam by extremists it has proven its point. It's understandable to be angered by a cartoon that ignores the beliefs of your religions, but to threaten death is far too extreme and far from constructive; it is sure to be used to vilify the west even more than ever in the way Unionists and Republicans use ignorance on the other side as proof that there is no middle ground.

Suff

Hobbes wrote:

Just because having our religon made fun of doesn't bother us doesn't mean it automatically equates to another culture.

Excellent Point!

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

You keep saying that, but do you honestly think embassies would be withdrawn, flags would be burnt and people would going into hiding on fear of death from the likes of French, Irish or German Christians/buddhists or Jews? So I'm afraid in the real world, it's an entirely different threat level we're talking about here.

dunno but I'm sure that Israel would do something big if europe printed such images, btw Germany still to this day pay Israel compensation for the Holucost so I would guess that if germany printed anything of that sort Israel will be just as mad!

Suff

I am Angry and Insulted.

I can understand the anger around the world and the violent langauge thats been used. at the begining when the pictures were published the muslim community asked the newspaper to stop and apologies, they refused, the community turned to the goverment for help, ...nothing...no one is going to acknowledge the insult.

the last resort was the large protests and the Boycotting of Danish products.
which I suport!

you need to consider the large size of the protests, there are bound to be some people with extreme views {violent slogens}
however I would not agree to any violent action or the burning of the Danish flag just yet!

I would see this going further unless the Danish newspaper and the Danish goverment provide some sort of an believible appology.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Basically(and correct me if I'm wrong), what your saying is that Muslims can be a load of reactionary violent types and you should choose to print or not print on that basis. Some pressure group they got goin' there.

Some countries, yes are very reactionary and have been for some time. Quite a few of the countries even have laws that forbid these type of cartoons being made. Define a "load". Lets be honest here Muslims make up approx 22% of the population of the world. If the majority were seriously pissed off you would know about it.