Questions on the cartoons - The aftermath

Captain Trips

OK, it's a little off topic, but does anyone know anything of the backgrounds of the editors of the newspapers which reprinted the cartoons?

I find it hard to believe that of all things, making fun of Muslims spontaneously on the same day just was coincidence.

So was this an orchestrated effort to show freedom of speech? As is the defence of many who support the actions of the publishers and editors?

Or is this an orchestrated attempt to incite violence and hatred, or it obviously has? (on both sides, to different degrees).

Why oh why, after the French riots, the Spain and London bombings, would the press openly provoke the Muslim community which is large in Europe with such a coordinated publishing, the likes of which never really happens, well, ever. This is issue was dealt with 3 months ago, so why now suddenly such a coordinated public incitement?

Muslim extremists may be using this situation to their advantage but the muslim extermist groups didn't coordinate the publishing of the cartoons, did they? So who did?

So, who owns the newspapers, who are the editors?

seamus

Captain Trips wrote:

Why oh why, after the French riots, the Spain and London bombings, would the press openly provoke the Muslim community which is large in Europe with such a coordinated publishing, the likes of which never really happens, well, ever. This is issue was dealt with 3 months ago, so why now suddenly such a coordinated public incitement?

Muslim extremists may be using this situation to their advantage but the muslim extermist groups didn't coordinate the publishing of the cartoons, did they? So who did?

The other newspapers reprinted the cartoons in November. Since then, there has been a concerted effort by Muslims extremists to incite the hatred and rioting that we're now seeing.

Personally, I'm glad to see that such things are printed despite bombings and death threats. If people become afraid to print such things, then the extremists win. If we become afraid to do things which may offend a certain religion, then each new thing that's banned brings us closer to becoming a religious state. Which is exactly what extremists want.

I don't blame the ordinary Muslim on the ground. People are idiots, regardless of creed. It would be just as easy to whip up a riotous storm in Croydon if you found the right emotive issue. But if a few people have to die to prevent violence from controlling what we do, then so be it.

Hobbes

If we become afraid to do things which may offend a certain religion, then each new thing that's banned brings us closer to becoming a religious state. Which is exactly what extremists want.

So offending religons is in? Why not stop there. Draw up a cartoon of making fun of any incident (eg. July bombings) and then see if you can get it printed in Europe. Or prehaps canvass to have some of the cartoons that the ADL took offense to be posted in european papers (which insult Jews).

After all this is all about freedom of the press is it not?

seamus

Hobbes wrote:

So offending religons is in? Why not stop there. Draw up a cartoon of making fun of any incident (eg. July bombings) and then see if you can get it printed in Europe. Or prehaps canvass to have some of the cartoons that the ADL took offense to be posted in european papers (which insult Jews).

After all this is all about freedom of the press is it not?

Twisting my words a little. There's being offensive for the sake of being offensive, and there's being offensive in order to make a point or to entertain.

While I can't condone the former, the line between the two can become a little blurred at times, e.g. when someone manages to make a point, but is still pushing an agenda of hatred.

Personally, I have no problems with anyone making a statement which may offend a religion, provided that the comment is fair and not just an out-and-out attack. Someone may present an argument that Mohammed was a sexual predator for example. Highly offensive to Muslims regardless of the context, but if they make some attempt to back up their claims (even if their evidence turns out to be unwittingly flawed or incorrect), then it's fair game.
Parodies are fair game, again so long as they're not made with an agenda.

Some of these particular cartoons do indeed fall onto the wrong side of my imaginary line, but the reaction has been more than unreasonable, which is why I would defend the publishing of said pictures despite that fact that I would have considered a couple of the images unfair and unreasonable.

ShayHT

Freedom of speech?

The paper refused to print cartoons of Jesus cause it might cause offense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

(Not that that justifies the OTT reaction, but does make the whole freedom of speech thing seem irrelevant)

Binomate

I support the Danish government. I hope they don't apologise to anyone and stand up for freedom of speech.

ShayHT

Freedom of speech?

Print an offensive cartoon of Jesus? No
Print an offensive cartoon of Mohamed? Yes

So if you are standing up for freedom of speech, what is considered offensive to print and what is not?

And..... "Support Denmark. Defend the free world". Give me a ****in break.

Binomate wrote:

I support the Danish government. I hope they don't apologise to anyone and stand up for freedom of speech.

seamus

ShayHT wrote:

The paper refused to print cartoons of Jesus cause it might cause offense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

Was it the same editor?

ShayHT

From what i can find out he was editor going back to at least 1997.

seamus wrote:

Was it the same editor?