Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

mike65

All the same she was a bit too too 'fullsome' for my liking (yes I understand she wanted to get out alive).

Mike.

lazydaisy

flogen wrote:

The cornerstone of a free world is the freedom to mock what we don't understand or what we can't be bothered to understand? I don't agree with that one bit. .

Well then perhaps you should move to one of the many totalitarian states we have in this world.

Oh. The news here has just reported that the pres of Iran has come out with a statement saying that the US will be punished for the publication of these cartoons and we now know they have the power to strike the East Coast, which means for them Jew York City, NYC. Oh yeah. I cant wait to get burnt to a crisp over a ****ing cartoon.

flogen wrote:

A free society gives us the oppertunity to discuss our differences without persecution or abuse, it gives us the freedom to disagree, to challenge and to explain constructively. There is no progress in mocking each other, the point of the cartoons was lost in the ignorance, just like your below example; the point of madonnas actions were lost in her need to shock..

Oh you mean talk things out in a civilized manner? You clearly are not a child of divorce.

Well we clearly are not in a free society when we are getting death threats and fatwahs are being issued.

flogen wrote:

No, I don't think any religion should be subjected to ignorant insult; all religions should be open to constructive criticism...

But it being insulting is YOUR interpretation not everyone's. Do you know how zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz that sounds. We wouldn't have comedy if all we had was constructive criticism.

flogen wrote:

You obviously haven't been watching my TV. I caught an episode of Newsnight where only 1 of 3 or 4 muslims took an extreme view, the rest said they were offended and wished to discuss the matter to ensure that their issues are understood....

I think being offended by that cartoon is in itself extremist and ridiculous.

flogen wrote:

Of course it is; to mock is to make fun of something, to point and laugh at the faults of someone or something and to look down on it; to criticise is to point out the faults and give reason and justification, and perhaps a suggestion on how to progress. Mocking is what people do to make little of others, criticise is what people do to try and highlight an issue that is best resolved.....

So what? What is the problem with that?

flogen wrote:

From what I read of the piece it is pointing out that Moderate voices in Islam are being overshadowed by extreemists, by their own unwillingness to act and by the extreemists violent threats. I think that it is somewhat true, but the media have a role to play also. The fact is the newspapers and TV channels are going to cover violent protests because it's more newsworth than peaceful ones. Did you see the protests in London yesterday? They were completely peaceful and a stark change from the first extreme protests we saw a week or so ago......

Dont you see? They are practising a right they seek to suppress.

flogen wrote:

Frankly I find that pointless, It doesn't say anything to me, I can understand why people would be offended by it and I think that her point (whatever it was) was miniscule. I'd be certain that she did it to offend and to cause uproar, and I think anyone who does that, for whatever reason, is an idiot and shouldn't be given the time of day.

Well, then I dont know what to say to you. Except whatever you think her point was or wasnt, doesnt necessarily meet what other think or thought it was. But im not sure how familiar you are with how interpretation works. I can see her point quite clearly, whether or not I agree with it is another thing, whether Im aligned with her aesthetic choices is again another discussion.

You see I dont think being offensive is always bad. Bill Hicks was offensive. Lenny Bruce was offensive. Rosa Parks was offensive. And intentionally so. THats what rebellion is - to offend those beliefs and customs which are oppressive and status quo. So if one day it becomes offensive for me to go around sans hajib, so be it, I will be happy to offend.

Isnt this fear of offending the same reason Ireland doesnt have a national independence day?

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

Well then perhaps you should move to one of the many totalitarian states we have in this world.

What a naiive thing to say; I don't think we should be free to mock people willy-nilly so I would obviously love a totalitarian state?

Oh. The news here has just reported that the pres of Iran has come out with a statement saying that the US will be punished for the publication of these cartoons and we now know they have the power to strike the East Coast, which means for them Jew York City, NYC. Oh yeah. I cant wait to get burnt to a crisp over a ****ing cartoon.

You're trying to blur the lines on purpose; I agree with you that agressive reactions are just as dangerous as cultural ignorance, if not they're more dangerous because they're a physical threat to life.

Oh you mean talk things out in a civilized manner? You clearly are not a child of divorce.

That has nothing to do with anything; whatever divorce has to do with civilised manner, it certainly has nothing to do with international politics.

Well we clearly are not in a free society when we are getting death threats and fatwahs are being issued.

Do you know what a free society means? Being free doesn't mean being closed off from extremist views, it means being free to disagree with them

But it being insulting is YOUR interpretation not everyone's. Do you know how zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz that sounds. We wouldn't have comedy if all we had was constructive criticism.

Go watch The Day Today or Brass Eye, that's what real satire is. Comedy insults, yes, but for a reason. You know that kind of comedy that just picks out people just to make fun of them because they can? I think that's moronic and a waste of time. What's so funny about being able to slag someone?

I think being offended by that cartoon is in itself extremist and ridiculous.

Then God forbid you should even cross the path of a real extremist. How dare you decide that someone who doesn't agree with you is an extremist.

So what? What is the problem with that?

You said there wasn't much of a difference, I pointed out there was.
If you feel that it's fair to mock someone because you can, then I don't see how you can respect anything.

Dont you see? They are practising a right they seek to suppress.

I'm not going to say it again; I disagree with the extremists actions 100%, I understand the irony. Moderate Muslims (like the ones who marched in London yesterday) do not want to limit free speech, they just want their right to be respected upheld.

Well, then I dont know what to say to you. Except whatever you think her point was or wasnt, doesnt necessarily meet what other think or thought it was. But im not sure how familiar you are with how interpretation works. I can see her point quite clearly, whether or not I agree with it is another thing, whether Im aligned with her aesthetic choices is again another discussion.

Perhaps you'd like to share her point with us? All I can see was an attempt to cause controversy for sales.

You see I dont think being offensive is always bad. Bill Hicks was offensive. Lenny Bruce was offensive. Rosa Parks was offensive. And intentionally so. THats what rebellion is - to offend those beliefs and customs which are oppressive and status quo. So if one day it becomes offensive for me to go around sans hajib, so be it, I will be happy to offend.

I have no problem causing offense, because no matter what I say, someone will be offended. If I say I believe in Jesus and no-one else, I will offend someone. However if I say that I believe in Jesus and anyone who thinks differently is a moronic scumbag who will burn in hell, then my offense would be much different. It's one thing to express an opinion or criticism, but you don't need to insult people's beliefs to do it.

Isnt this fear of offending the same reason Ireland doesnt have a national independence day?

There are probably many reasons, but that's not for this discussion.

Freddie59

lazydaisy wrote:

Exactly, where are the moderates speaking up? They arent. So either, they are afraid or they support the protesters who have so far killed 11 people.

Exactly. Unfortunately that is why they are moderates in the first instance. Fear of retribution for speaking out. All totalitarian regimes throughout history have been proven to rule with an iron fist. The likes of Iran are no different.

Learn from history:

"For the roots of our present lie deep in the past. He must understand the past to know how the present came to be"

Have we learned nothing?

lazydaisy

flogen wrote:

What a naiive thing to say; I don't think we should be free to mock people willy-nilly so I would obviously love a totalitarian state?.

There's no need for that. I refer to NAIVE.

flogen wrote:

You're trying to blur the lines on purpose; I agree with you that agressive reactions are just as dangerous as cultural ignorance, if not they're more dangerous because they're a physical threat to life.?.

Im reporting what I heard on the news and Im expressing my reaction to it.

flogen wrote:

That has nothing to do with anything; whatever divorce has to do with civilised manner, it certainly has nothing to do with international politics..?.

Well I am heartily sorry for having offended thee.... I was making a joke... oh yeah I forgot... that's in the new ten commandments... thou shall not offend. Well the US embassy I believe is on Ailesbury Road in Ballsbridge if you'd like to protest my joke.

flogen wrote:

Do you know what a free society means? Being free doesn't mean being closed off from extremist views, it means being free to disagree with them..?.

Exactly, and without having your life threatened and your property burnt down to the ground.

flogen wrote:

Go watch The Day Today or Brass Eye, that's what real satire is. Comedy insults, yes, but for a reason. You know that kind of comedy that just picks out people just to make fun of them because they can? I think that's moronic and a waste of time. What's so funny about being able to slag someone?..?.You said there wasn't much of a difference, I pointed out there was.
If you feel that it's fair to mock someone because you can, then I don't see how you can respect anything..?..?.[/

So I guess you dissapprove of : The Simpsons. Fr. Ted. Little Britain. Arrested Development, Dumb and Dumber, Me Myself and Irene, White Chicks, Charlie Chaplin, Monty Python, Faulty Towers, and nearly every other comedy.

The point is even if you dont like what people say, they still have a right to say it.

I didnt say it was nice, or good or productive. Now your twisting things. I said its a fundamental right and has to be upheld. The price you pay for this freedom is ugly words and images sometimes. I think the price is worth it.

flogen wrote:

Then God forbid you should even cross the path of a real extremist. How dare you decide that someone who doesn't agree with you is an extremist.?..?.

Excuse me? How dare I? I dare. Im sure Im crossing their paths every day and dont even know it. I know I do it everytime I walk across ground zero. I think that these acts of violence towards the Embassies, these fatwas, are extremists. Thats my opinion and Im entitled to it. If you dont like it then you dont like it. Thats your entitlement.

flogen wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to share her point with us? All I can see was an attempt to cause controversy for sales..

Well Id be happy to pm you with it if you would like but I feel to to that here would be disracting and off topic.

flogen wrote:

I have no problem causing offense, because no matter what I say, someone will be offended. If I say I believe in Jesus and no-one else, I will offend someone. However if I say that I believe in Jesus and anyone who thinks differently is a moronic scumbag who will burn in hell, then my offense would be much different. It's one thing to express an opinion or criticism, but you don't need to insult people's beliefs to do it..

People say that all the time. Who cares. Just tune it out. Just because people say **** doesnt mean you have to listen. Just yesterday I was in Times Sq and there were a bunch of black american islamic [which are a different thing altogether from ME Muslims] activitists yelling out in the street how the white jew is an imposter and should be arrested for identity theft.:rolleyes:

No one pays it any attention. So it loses its power. But moreover people just dont care. Its just another crackpot group spouting its vibe. Then I go to take the train and there are the Jews for Jesus handing out pamphlets. This is just a part of life. It's not a big deal.

The key difference is: these people are not burning buildings or killing people or intimidating the press.

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

There's no need for that. I refer to NAIVE.

I feel there was every need.

Well I am heartily sorry for having offended thee.... I was making a joke... oh yeah I forgot... that's in the new ten commandments... thou shall not offend. Well the US embassy I believe is on Ailesbury Road in Ballsbridge if you'd like to protest my joke.

I get the feeling I'm wasting my time discussing this with you

Exactly, and without having your life threatened and your property burnt down to the ground.

The only way the words of others will affect you is if you let them; you, like I seem certain that we will not let them; you however seem to think that it is Muslims who are making threats when it is extremists acting as muslims.

So I guess you dissapprove of : The Simpsons. Fr. Ted. Little Britain. Arrested Development, Dumb and Dumber, Me Myself and Irene, White Chicks, Charlie Chaplin, Monty Python, Faulty Towers, and nearly every other comedy.

The point is even if you dont like what people say, they still have a right to say it.

Of course they do, but offending someone for the sake of a bad joke is different to saying someone I don't want to hear.

I didnt say it was nice, or good or productive. Now your twisting things. I said its a fundamental right and has to be upheld. The price you pay for this freedom is ugly words and images sometimes. I think the price is worth it.

So it comes down to this; You think people should be free to say whatever they want to say no matter who they offend or who it pisses off, I feel that free speech should be regulated by respect for others.
If you think people should be allowed to say what they want no matter who it offends, why do you have a problem with people threatening the West? They can say what they want, regardless, right?

Excuse me? How dare I? I dare. Im sure Im crossing their paths every day and dont even know it. I know I do it everytime I walk across ground zero. I think that these acts of violence towards the Embassies, these fatwas, are extremists. Thats my opinion and Im entitled to it. If you dont like it then you dont like it. Thats your entitlement.

What is your opinion? Someone who gets offended by these cartoons are extremists, That's what you said, right?

Well Id be happy to pm you with it if you would like but I feel to to that here would be disracting and off topic.

If you're going to make a point in a thread you should justify it in the thread. this topic has gone OT already to some degree.

People say that all the time. Who cares. Just tune it out. Just because people say **** doesnt mean you have to listen. Just yesterday I was in Times Sq and there were a bunch of black american islamic [which are a different thing altogether from ME Muslims] activitists yelling out in the street how the white jew is an imposter and should be arrested for identity theft.:rolleyes:

So I can call for your head to be put on a spike because of your ignorance... if you don't like it, just ignore me.

The key difference is: these people are not burning buildings or killing people or intimidating the press.

You refuse to listen to Muslims regardless of their actions. You're turning your head away from protests that are peaceful as well as violent, so that doesn't seem to matter to you

lazydaisy

flogen wrote:

The only way the words of others will affect you is if you let them; you, like I seem certain that we will not let them; you however seem to think that it is Muslims who are making threats when it is extremists acting as muslims.

So the extremists are fake muslims? Well, isnt it true that in every political platform from environmentalists to feminists to any other lobby that the radicals/extremisists are there to make the moderates look good?

flogen wrote:

Of course they do, but offending someone for the sake of a bad joke is different to saying someone I don't want to hear.

I dont get what you mean.

flogen wrote:

So it comes down to this; You think people should be free to say whatever they want to say no matter who they offend or who it pisses off, I feel that free speech should be regulated by respect for others.
If you think people should be allowed to say what they want no matter who it offends, why do you have a problem with people threatening the West? They can say what they want, regardless, right?.

I'm not arrogant enough to believe I have the right to shut them up. It doesnt mean I like it, but I do recognise the right to speak. Having a problem with does not = the right to silence. At least via free speech we have some indication of their plans so its not squashed underground.

flogen wrote:

What is your opinion? Someone who gets offended by these cartoons are extremists, That's what you said, right??.

No. Someone who destroys property and kills people over cartoons are. Someone who threatens to strike with nuclear weapons is extremist.

Someone who does not condemn the death threats, fatwas, and murders over these cartoons has extremist sympathies as to me anyway, these are the actions of extremists. To you they may not be. In anycase do you consider those "moderate" reactions????

flogen wrote:

So I can call for your head to be put on a spike because of your ignorance... if you don't like it, just ignore me.??.

Well it wouldn't be the first time I've gotten a death threat, so go ahead. Sure, I would ignore you. Of course I would. What else would I do about it?
Seeing as Im not a killer or a vandal. So what? Its more a reflection of your state of mind than anything to do with me.

When you call me ignorant, are you using it in the Irish sense of rude or in the rest of the anglophone world's sense of "lack of knowledge?" Not a rhetorical question. I need to know what you mean by calling me ignorant.

pH

I feel that free speech should be regulated by respect for others.

Would you elaborate on that, with reference to 'regulated' - are you in favour of the media being regulated by a political or state body, or do you merely mean self discipline?

Would you be in favour of sanctions (fines or prison terms) for the journalists and publishers involved?

lazydaisy

One more question. Who should decide what is offensive and what isn't?

Suff

lazydaisy wrote:

One more question. Who should decide what is offensive and what isn't?

Well...you're own mind can!
there is logic to be applied as long as you have good, education, culture background then you know what's offensive and what's not!

for example : Do you think when talking to Jews one could make fun of the Holocaust? cos its sensetive issue to them.
I would comfortably say that most Christains in the west these days have lost their respect to their religion, Mocking, Insulting Christ.

Now they are trying to force that mentality to others!

if you don't respect your own religion, culture, faith you get shocked by people who do and defend it.

Freddie59

Suff wrote:

I would comfortably say that most Christains in the west these days have lost their respect to their religion, Mocking, Insulting Christ.

That's called a sweeping statement my friend....much like saying all Mulims are terrorists (which, of course they're not.........). You're being extremely presumptuous. Some do choose to mock Him, but they will ultimately pay the price. And, after all, they're mocking the son of God, not a man. Big difference. So pay they will - but our Creator, not man or woman, will be the judge.

Suff wrote:

if you don't respect your own religion, culture, faith you get shocked by people who do and defend it.

So in order to defend my faith I should terrorise others, burn down/invade civilian buildings, and try to restrict press freedom. VERY 14th Century......

Suff wrote:

Now they are trying to force that mentality to others!

Was it a Western paper that published the Cartoons in Egypt? They were posted in Denmark (a liberal Western country with a history of press freedom).

flogen

Yet again we're straying away from the topic at hand. I'm not going to say the discussion I have been having hasn't contributed to that, but I am saying that it stops here.
Back on topic everyone

flogen

pH wrote:

Would you elaborate on that, with reference to 'regulated' - are you in favour of the media being regulated by a political or state body, or do you merely mean self discipline?

Would you be in favour of sanctions (fines or prison terms) for the journalists and publishers involved?

I believe a newspaper should always practice self discipline, and to be careful of religious taboo's would be part of that discipline. While artists have used the image of Christ in ways that could be compared to the cartoons I have yet to see a newspaper printing similar images, or commissioning for that matter.

I do think that a press council is a good thing, though. The growth of low-brow journalism in Ireland has shown me that one newspapers taboo is anothers money spinner, but that's a broader subject that I'm sure will be covered in another thread.

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

One more question. Who should decide what is offensive and what isn't?

You know this is a moot issue when it comes to the media tbh. We routinely have corrections/aplogies/retractions/court cases in various countries as well as our own where a newspaper story has caused offense.

pH

Hobbes wrote:

You know this is a moot issue when it comes to the media tbh. We routinely have corrections/aplogies/retractions/court cases in various countries as well as our own where a newspaper story has caused offense.

We have corrections normally about factual matters, where damages can be shown. Normaly you have to publish something you know to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth for a libel to stick.

Anyway you are right about the 'moot issue', as was recently brought to the fore with the Liam Lawlor story you cannot libel the dead (and yes, the prophet mohammed is dead).

http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=36&aid=788

fly_agaric

Suff wrote:

for example : Do you think when talking to Jews one could make fun of the Holocaust? cos its sensetive issue to them.

What is it with the jews? Why does everything always come back to them?:)

Oh you can do it alright - whether you should is another question. Plenty in the ME seem to like poking "fun" at the old jews anyway, don't they? Much of this "fun" seems to involve juxtaposing Jewish and Nazi symbology in a suggestive way too!

Suff wrote:

I would comfortably say that most Christains in the west these days have lost their respect to their religion, Mocking, Insulting Christ.

Eh...the people who mock and insult Christ are not Christians. The real Christians do get upset and angry but they don't bully and threaten to enforce respect from those who don't really give much of a shít about their religion except in so far as it can be exploited for a bit of cheap controversy.
If you had said most people in the West don't respect religion now, yes I'd agree they don't! What's your answer - force them to respect it somehow?

Suff wrote:

Now they are trying to force that mentality to others!

Islamic countries are trying to (1) force people to apologise collectively for this insult and (2) making efforts to change the law in countries that are not Islamic states with majority muslim populations so that a similar insult cannot occur again.
Muslim extremists are protesting violently, issuing dark threats etc to achieve the same goals through intimidation.

All as a result of cartoons insulting Islam originally printed in a Danish paper spread all over the Middle East by Danish muslim agitators who couldn't get their way legally in Denmark and so called on the aid of their coreligionists across the ME to back them up!

Denmark is not a muslim country. Most Danes don't give a crap about Islam or Mohammed or Islamic law etc. No doubt you think that's just a terrible state of affairs and the light of Islam should be brought to the unbelievers.
So who's forcing who here again? Who is trying to bend whom to their will?

Suff wrote:

if you don't respect your own religion, culture, faith you get shocked by people who do and defend it.

So "defending the faith" involves telling people who don't give much of a crap to respect it or else? Very Crusaderish!

flogen

fly_agaric, please stay on topic, this is News/Media

pH wrote:

We have corrections normally about factual matters, where damages can be shown. Normaly you have to publish something you know to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth for a libel to stick.

No, in Irish libel cases the defendent (the newspaper/reporter) has to prove that their statements were undeniably true and fair while the prosecutor (the supposed defamed person) doesn't have to prove the statement was false. An extremely well researched article which was published in good faith could still be open to libel if evidence which was honestly unavailable to the journalist comes to light at a later date; however planned changes in Irish libel laws should go some way to changing this with the addition of "reasonable publication" to the defamation bill.

However, as you said, you cannot libel the dead

fly_agaric

^^So it is. Sorry about that.

GreeBo

Qadri wrote:

publication of blasphemous and defamatory caricatures

Is a prophet a God?
Can you defame a God?
Can you defame the dead?
How can a God die? (Other than the Terry Practhett way)

Qadri wrote:

When the British newspaper, The Independent (27 January 2003) depicted the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying, ' What's wrong, You've never seen a politician kissing babies before', this caused an uproar in Israel and other parts of the world raising tempers especially in the Jewish and Israeli community around the world.

Maybe I missed the rioting and threats to burn Europe that time...

Qadri wrote:

the Vatican including Italian politicians immediately expressed shock and anger at these comments. A senior Catholic Church official added, "I know he will say he was speaking in jest but such things should not be spoken of in jest."

Again, no rioting and threats.

Qadri wrote:

The issue here is not one of curtailing freedom of expression but objecting to the ridicule and insult towards the scared elements of an entire civilisation.

So where do you draw the line?
Whats sacred to you may not be to me, and vice versa.
You cannot have Freedom of Speech and then tack on a bunch of rules afterwards.

For example, I find

Sura 4:34 wrote:

Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other

offensive, so can you please stop practicing your religion around me...
Needless to say, I wont hold my breath.

It seems to me that Muslims believe themselves to be superior somehow and believe that because they have taken offence, all bets are off and we should bow to whatever "societal rules" they decide upon.
Get some perspective people, if you want to live by your own laws then you probably need to remain in your own land. When in Rome....

metrovelvet

Give me a ****ing break.

Its called censorship plain and simple.

You don't like the cartoon, get over it. Dont burn down buildings and kill people.

The holocaust is not a picture. It was an event which happened and WW2 killed 50 million people in total. Dont you know the difference between reality and a cartoon?

Humour, comedy targets and violates taboos. We need to protect the rights of the comedian. Without them laughter will die and to me laughter is sacred.

Hobbes

So where do you draw the line?
Whats sacred to you may not be to me, and vice versa.
You cannot have Freedom of Speech and then tack on a bunch of rules afterwards.

Actually Danish media do have rules tack on. Basically says you can print what you want providing your going to live with the results of what you printed (generally a day in court).

offensive, so can you please stop practicing your religion around me...
Needless to say, I wont hold my breath.

Just want to point out that apart from being offtopic you are also wrong. I recommend you go to the Islam forum and look up the FAQ about women. Your quote is (1) out of context and (2) translated incorrectly.

flogen

GreeBo wrote:

offensive, so can you please stop practicing your religion around me...
Needless to say, I wont hold my breath.

It seems to me that Muslims believe themselves to be superior somehow and believe that because they have taken offence, all bets are off and we should bow to whatever "societal rules" they decide upon.
Get some perspective people, if you want to live by your own laws then you probably need to remain in your own land. When in Rome....

This forum is not for the discussion of a religion but the media and its role in this cartoon controversy.
There is an Islam forum (as pointed to by Hobbes) which you air your views in if you so wish; otherwise stay on topic.

secret_squirrel

GreeBo wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadri
The issue here is not one of curtailing freedom of expression but objecting to the ridicule and insult towards the scared elements of an entire civilisation.

So where do you draw the line?
Whats sacred to you may not be to me, and vice versa.
You cannot have Freedom of Speech and then tack on a bunch of rules afterwards.

If you had bothered to read any of this thread you would have realised there is no place where freedom of speech is an absolute. Every State in the World that practises 'freedom of speech' has a 'bunch of rules tacked on afterwards'.
Why is it so hard for most posters here understand that?

Just for the hard of reading :
There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech any State

So stop making spurious arguments with it.

MetroVelvet wrote:

The holocaust is not a picture. It was an event which happened and WW2 killed 50 million people in total. Dont you know the difference between reality and a cartoon?

Some people dont believe the holocaust happened. Some people dont believe in Islam. There is contradictory evidence for both. Many countries would ban a holocaust denial cartoon.

Why shouldnt the same rules apply to cartoons that defame islam?

Why is it ok to offend millions of muslims, but not ok to offend millions of Jews?

Should we not do something to equalise the rules around freedom of speech with regards to religion just because a minority of Muslims react violently?

Just because their reactions are completely over the top doesnt mean they and their more moderate brethren dont have a point.

What this issue shows is the fundamental hypocrisy of our (the Wests) censorship and blasphemy laws. They should either not exist or exist to create a level playing field for all religions.

The West, and particularly its media aspires to be seen as a beacon of civilisation (laughable really), however given that should we treat all religions equally in our laws and media? ie show respect and tolerance for all.

flogen

Moved metrovelvets comments to News/Media at the invitation of the moderator there;
Everyone else get back on topic, bans will be handed down to those of you who cannot.

Freddie59

flogen wrote:

Moved metrovelvets comments to News/Media at the invitation of the moderator there;
Everyone else get back on topic, bans will be handed down to those of you who cannot.

I would respectfully suggest moving what borders on propaganda by Quadri to that 'forum' aslo.:)

Freddie59

secret_squirrel wrote:

Just for the hard of reading :
There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech any State

How dare you come on a free-discussion website and make that claim. That is arrant nonsense.

flogen

Freddie59 wrote:

How dare you come on a free-discussion website and make that claim. That is arrant nonsense.

As has been stated before, this site is not completely free, it has to follow rules and laws, self imposed or otherwise.
Perhaps you can explain how the statement was wrong rather than criticise the fact that the statement was made.

metrovelvet

You mean it was moved to ISLAM and converted into a THREAD.

I didnt want to start a thread. I wanted to respond to the previous post.

That Quadri post is pure propeganda. There are some serious double standards here.

Unbelievable.

flogen

metrovelvet wrote:

You mean it was moved to ISLAM and converted into a THREAD.

I didnt want to start a thread. I wanted to respond to the previous post.

That Quadri post is pure propeganda. There are some serious double standards here.

Unbelievable.

Quadri's post has been moved also; get back on topic.

metrovelvet

Flogen -

What exactly is the topic? Seriously, there are so many issues underneath this cartoon I think people can be forgiven for webbing it a bit.

And have people seen this? There's a bounty placed on the head of the cartoonists.
http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/7423255?view=Eircomnet