Muhammad cartoons will be aired on Dutch TV - Geert Wilders

MathDebater

A Dutch far-right leader says cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad will be broadcast on Dutch TV despite them not being aired as he intended on Saturday.

Geert Wilders said a "misunderstanding" with the network meant they were not broadcast on a slot on national TV allocated to political parties.

The controversial cartoons were shown at an event in the US last month that was attacked by two gunmen who were shot dead by security guards.

Mr Wilders was a speaker at that event.

The airing of the cartoons was supposed to be a key moment for Mr Wilders in what some Muslims have described as his crusade against Islam, according to the BBC's Anna Holligan in The Hague.

But instead of cartoons, the slot allocated to Mr Wilder's Freedom Party featured an old recording about migrants.

'Blood-splattered map'

A furious Mr Wilders shared the film on social media after it failed to appear on TV.

The images feature a bearded man in various guises. In one picture, he is wearing robes standing over a blood-splattered map of the world, while another shows snakes protruding from his beard.

Mr Wilders initially accused the TV station of sabotage but has since retracted that statement, saying there was a mix-up and that the cartoons will be shown next week.

"I have just spoken to [Dutch broadcaster] NPO boss [Henk] Hagoort. It seems to have been a misunderstanding," he tweeted.

He added that Mr Hagoort "assured me the video will now be broadcast at 15:55 GMT on Wednesday."

The timing of the broadcast during the holy month of Ramadan is designed to have maximum impact, our correspondent adds.

Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33210166

Introduction by Wilders: "A few weeks ago I was in Garland, Texas, at an event showing Muhammad cartoons. Soon after my speech, there was a terrorist attack. Islam and the terrorists don't want us to show these cartoons, but terror and violence should never beat freedom of speech. That is why we need to do what terrorists want to prevent us from doing. I asked the House of Representatives if I could show cartoons in their building. My request was denied, but it's still very important to show them. That is the only way terrorists don't beat freedom of speech. That's why I am showing them today."

At the end: "'You can't draw me,' Muhammad says. 'That's why I draw you,' says Bosch Fawstin, the winner of the cartoon contest. 

On the one hand, I'm 100% in favour of freedom of expression, including the freedom to offend people's religious sensitivities. But then again on the other hand, this could potentially lead to more violent attacks like we saw in January with the Charlie Hebdo murders.

The_Valeyard

South Park did it years ago.

MathDebater

The_Valeyard wrote: »

South Park did it years ago.

Comedy Central censored it, did they not?

Youngblood.III

Someone will die because of this...its not worth it.
Leave it be and get on with life.

frostyjacks

Youngblood.III wrote: »

Someone will die because of this...its not worth it.
Leave it be and get on with life.

And give in to terrorism? That's a great message to send out.

Edgarfrndly

I find it a wee bit ironic that comments are disabled on the video. Still though, people should be free to express themselves without the threat of terror.

It seems unnecessary and provocative.

Stations have managed to avoid broadcasting such cartoons for decades, why the need to push the boundaries now we know it results in violence?

LeinsterDub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It seems unnecessary and provocative.

Stations have managed to avoid broadcasting such cartoons for decades, why the need to push the boundaries now we know it results in violence?

Because it wasn't an issue years ago. This is a new 'outrage' for extremist to latch on too. Muhammad was actually in the south park episode super friends about ten year ago and no one batted an eye lid

Canis Lupus

frostyjacks wrote: »

And give in to terrorism? That's a great message to send out.

Does it have to be about terrorism? What about the perfectly normal everyday muslims this offends and really, when you boil it down it's offense for the sake of offense. It just seems a touch unnecessary really.

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Muhammad was actually in the south park episode super friends about ten year ago and no one batted an eye lid

Oh many did, the creators received murder threats and it was censored, and has never been shown in many countries.

Of course nothing excuses the acts of terrorists, but I just don't see the pressing need to keep prodding the issue.

Matt_Trakker

MathDebater wrote: »

Comedy Central censored it, did they not?

They censored the 2nd time they tried, but the first time he was part of a Supergroup of religious heroes:

http://pirromount.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/south-park-mohammad21-300x225.gif

Himself, Jesus, buddah and that Adams guy who started the Mormons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends
Mohammed had the power of flame, pretty funny episode

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems unnecessary and provocative.

Stations have managed to avoid broadcasting such cartoons for decades, why the need to push the boundaries now we know it results in violence?

Geert wants attention, I'd imagine.

LeinsterDub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh many did, the creators received murder threats and it was censored, and has never been shown in many countries.

Of course nothing excuses the acts of terrorists, but I just don't see the pressing need to keep prodding the issue.

I should have said no one batted an eye at the time. Any eye lid batting happen years after the episode was aired

NachoBusiness

I think cartoons poking fun at Muhammad is wrong tbh and it shouldn't be condoned in any way, shape or form.

The man has parkinson's disease ffs.

Very Bored

I don't see the need to use cartoons that offend, particularly not in the way Geert Wilders wants it done which is simply to offend. He's an utter pig of a man. Even the merest research into him makes that obvious.

I am also totally against the Charlie Hebdo killings. That they were seeking to offend and play the provocateur does not mean they deserved to die. Those that carried out this evil act did something far, far worse, incomparable in fact, with people drawing a few cartoons.

That doesn't mean that offending for the sake of offending is right either though. If something is to be genuinely gained from doing something which offends then so be it, but if its solely to cause offence then that's not on either.

I'm as disturbed by radical Islam as the next man, as I am disturbed by any radical following of any religious belief. I also, personally, don't think there is anything wrong with drawing pictures of a prophet or a God. But then I grew up in Catholic Ireland where images of God and Jesus are acceptable.

That said, if someone drew a cartoon of Jesus in, say, a compromising position with Mary Magdalene, then I could understand the upset it would cause a great many people. Whilst I am atheist myself, I would question the motives of the person who drew such a thing. Likewise, I have to question the motives of someone drawing cartoons of Muhammed when they know that this will cause offence to many Muslims, both extreme and not.

MathDebater

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Does it have to be about terrorism? What about the perfectly normal everyday muslims this offends and really, when you boil it down it's offense for the sake of offense. It just seems a touch unnecessary really.

This desire for not unnecessarily offending people rarely exends to those of other faiths. People all over the world publicly mock Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, spiritually, Scientology etc, often on public TV, and no one bats an eye.

I remember during the referendum a couple kissed in front of an elderly enough no campaigner and posted it on the Twitter machine. It caught on and those commenting were congratulating them on sticking it to the religous bigots and what not. He evidently was offended but that didn't matter.

By not showing such cartoons and by not treating Islam like every other religion, we are not showing Muslims respect. We are treating them differently and we are showing them that we fear them. Which, funnily enough, is the dictionary definition of Islamophobia.

Very Bored

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

They censored the 2nd time they tried, but the first time he was part of a Supergroup of religious heroes:

http://pirromount.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/south-park-mohammad21-300x225.gif

Himself, Jesus, buddah and that Adams guy who started the Mormons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Best_Friends
Mohammed had the power of flame, pretty funny episode

There's also a Street Fighter 2 style game called Faith Fighter where you can be Ganesha, Jesus, God, Muhammad, Buddha or the Sikh God and they all have different powers. They all also say things when they win, like God says "worship me" and Muhammad says "Allahu Akbhar". At the end you have to fight the Scientology God and the Spaghetti God also makes the odd appearance here and there. It caused outrage when it first came out so they have two versions. One is uncensored where you can see Muhammad and the other is censored where you can't see his face.

ShagNastii

I'm all for freedom of speech but I think it is completely ludicrous that people are pushing to publish stuff like this just to throw a finger at the Islamic nuts.

All great poking fun at things but if it means religious terrorist turning up to places and KILLING people FFS don't poke.

You have to put it at your own front door. If I had a family member working in the likes of RTE or the Irish Times and some editor decides in the interests of free speech and "not letting the terrorist win" to publish some stupid cartoons about some stupid ideology which in turn makes ahmad et el turn up shooting the whole office.

Please take my freedom of speech.

Very Bored

MathDebater wrote: »

This desire for not unnecessarily offending people rarely exends to those of other faiths. People all over the world publicly mock Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, spiritually, Scientology etc, often on public TV, and no one bats an eye.

I remember during the referendum a couple kissed in front of an elderly enough no campaigner and posted it on the Twitter machine. It caught on and those commenting were congratulating them on sticking it to the religous bigots and what not. He evidently was offended but that didn't matter.

By not showing such cartoons and by not treating Islam like every other religion, we are not showing Muslims respect. We are treating them differently and we are showing them that we fear them. Which, funnily enough, is the dictionary definition of Islamophobia.

I understand your point, and I think you make a lot of sense. However, I do wonder whether the pictures you mention are in the same context. Its not considered offensive by Christians, for example, to draw pictures of Jesus. It is considered offensive by Muslims to draw pictures of Muhammad. Drawing a picture of Jesus is not therefore the same. Drawing a picture of Jesus getting it together with Mary Magdalene, for example, on top of the cross in Golgotha would cause huge offence but I doubt anyone would push the point home that much. I would also sincerely hope that they wouldn't as it would be outrageous. That is probably as close an example I could give as to the offence pictures of Muhammad causes to Muslims.

catallus

Nodin wrote: »

Geert wants attention, I'd imagine.

This might be right on the nose.

The motives of the killers/terrorists are a wee bit deeper than a few cartoons, I would think.

It's just nobody wants to look any deeper into the motives of these people and so they swallow the official party line of the official media.

"DEY H8 OUR FREEDOM" :pac:

MathDebater

This might be right on the nose.

The motives of the killers/terrorists are a wee bit deeper than a few cartoons, I would think.

What were the motives of the Charlie Hebdo murderers if not a few cartoons?

Forgotten password 99

Everyone put your head in SAND!!!.

Streetwalker

Stupid stupid idea. I'm sorry but why provoke these guys? Just leave them to it. Like poking a bear with a stick and then being surprised when the thing mauls you to death.

darkpagandeath

Correct me if I'm wrong but, is it not some 12/13 century interpretation that says a particular person cannot be drawn and not from the original text ?

Saipanne

MathDebater wrote: »

What were the motives of the Charlie Hebdo murderers if not a few cartoons?

To make people afraid to criticise their beliefs.

darkpagandeath

Streetwalker wrote: »

Stupid stupid idea. I'm sorry but why provoke these guys? Just leave them to it. Like poking a bear with a stick and then being surprised when the thing mauls you to death.

Yeah I'm sure those moderate Muslims in Iraq and places like that poked ISIS...

Very Bored

Actually I'm not even sure that direct humiliation of religions does occur even with other faiths. Certainly not on a regular basis. Believers of other faiths may be ridiculed, but then it would be true to say that Muslims are ridiculed also. Religions, including Islam, are regularly criticised. But humiliation, not usually. Drawing pictures of Muhammad, in the Muslim psyche is tantamount to humiliating the religion itself. Billy Connolly, for example, regularly takes the p out of Christians, particularly Catholics, but never the actual faith itself. Because people wouldn't generally find that acceptable. That said, Billy Connolly has also taken the p out of Muslims.

Can they not just be left be?

Why do they need to be mocked?

catallus

MathDebater wrote: »

What were the motives of the Charlie Hebdo murderers if not a few cartoons?

Those shooters were trained abroad, pawns in a bigger game. This is chess not checkers.

"They look at us and ask.... if they don't believe in god, then how can they bear to die? The wise men of Islam know this much about us." Norman Mailer, Cannibals and Christians, 1989.

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

Can they not just be left be?

Why do they need to be mocked?

Why does anything then ? I would quite happily challenge any Christian sky wizard book for being out of date and out of touch with modern life.

darkpagandeath

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why does anything then ?

I don't have the answer to that. It wasn't my point

M5

If your religion causes you to be more offended by a cartoon than the brutality by isis and in "westernised" Saudi Arabia then your religion deserves every bit of mockery it receives

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't have the answer to that. It wasn't my point

If god did create us, We are only working in the system he/she created and criticism is part of that or is god wrong ?

darkpagandeath

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Why does anything then ? I would quite happily challenge any Christian sky wizard book for being out of date and out of touch with modern life.

Challenging and taunting are different things.

darkpagandeath

Deleted User wrote: »

Challenging and taunting are different things.

You cannot challenge a particular brand without being labelled a phob.

Very Bored

Who says Muslims aren't offended by ISIS? Many Muslim states work very hard to prevent and crush terrorism. Some Muslims join ISIS, but then some Germans joined the Nazi Party. It didn't mean all Germans thought or think Hitler was a good idea. Neither does it mean all Muslims think ISIS is a good idea.

There's more to this cartoon thing than we interpret. As I said, Billy Connolly has taken the p out of Muslims. He absolutely ridiculed many of their customs and beliefs. I don't remember him receiving any death threats or being shot at. So, why do the cartoons offend when he didn't? I don't know what it is but there is more too it than we assume.

I'll try to find the video of Billy Connolly... to be honest, what he's saying strikes me as more offensive than a cartoon but obviously, for Muslims, its not. Same thing with Jim Jeffries.

M5

Very Bored wrote: »

Who says Muslims aren't offended by ISIS? Many Muslim states work very hard to prevent and crush terrorism. Some Muslims join ISIS, but then some Germans joined the Nazi Party. It didn't mean all Germans thought or think Hitler was a good idea. Neither does it mean all Muslims think ISIS is a good idea.

There's more to this cartoon thing than we interpret. As I said, Billy Connolly has taken the p out of Muslims. He absolutely ridiculed many of their customs and beliefs. I don't remember him receiving any death threats or being shot at. So, why do the cartoons offend when he didn't? I don't know what it is but there is more too it than we assume.

I'll try to find the video of Billy Connolly... to be honest, what he's saying strikes me as more offensive than a cartoon but obviously, for Muslims, its not.

I don't see mass protests when journalists are beheaded or women are stoned for being raped. One silly cartoon and the Muslim world goes bananas! Actions speak louder than words

darkpagandeath

M5 wrote: »

I don't see mass protests when journalists are beheaded or women are stoned for being raped. One silly cartoon and the Muslim world goes bananas! Actions speak louder than words

I find it ironic these people going on about letting their relatives leave the UK and not stopping them and also saying stop monitoring them.

folamh

I like Geert Wilders but this is seems unnecessary, frivolous and even counter-productive to the end of raising awareness about Islamic extremism. Time and resources could be expended more productively in policy campaigns.

Very Bored

M5 wrote: »

I don't see mass protests when journalists are beheaded or women are stoned for being raped. One silly cartoon and the Muslim world goes bananas! Actions speak louder than words

Ever noticed its the lunatic fringe that goes bananas? To say all Muslims go bananas over this simply isn't true.

Watch this video of Billy Connolly... http://tune.pk/video/3051439/billy-connolly-a-laugh-at-islam

Now, I was nearly falling on the floor laughing the first time I saw it, but you've got to admit its far more offensive than any silly cartoon. At least it is to us. But no protest, nothing. Why? As I said, there must be something more to the reaction over the cartoons.

darkpagandeath

Very Bored wrote: »

Ever noticed its the lunatic fringe that goes bananas? To say all Muslims go bananas over this simply isn't true.

Watch this video of Billy Connolly... http://tune.pk/video/3051439/billy-connolly-a-laugh-at-islam

Now, I was nearly falling on the floor laughing the first time I saw it, but you've got to admit its far more offensive than any silly cartoon. At least it is to us. But no protest, nothing. Why? As I said, there must be something more to the reaction over the cartoons.

Drawing and art and alike are not accepted at all as far as i know. Spoken word can be tolerated.

Afaik, to all who refer to jokes about Islam, it is not humour that is the main issue, but making a picture of Muhammed. Billy Connolly and Jim Jeffries and others may tell jokes, but that's not as offensive to the fanatics as creating an image.

Very Bored

Deleted User wrote: »

Afaik, to all who refer to jokes about Islam, it is not humour that is the main issue, but making a picture of Muhammed. Billy Connolly and Jim Jeffries and others may tell jokes, but that's not as offensive to the fanatics as creating an image.

Exactly my point. So its almost impossible for us to understand their mindset because, for example, someone drawing a cartoon and someone mocking us is not the same, the mocking is far more offensive to us.

darkpagandeath

Very Bored wrote: »

Exactly my point. So its almost impossible for us to understand their mindset because, for example, someone drawing a cartoon and someone mocking us is not the same, the mocking is far more offensive to us.

My beliefs are not so fragile.

stefanovich

If you are offended by cartoons then get the hell out of Europe. You are not welcome here.

PressRun

I never really understand the intention behind these kinds of cartoons. What are they hoping to achieve by doing it? Is it supposed to be satire? Because if it is, it's not very good. The best satire punches up, not down, and regardless of whatever the likes of Wilders believe, Muslims are not powerful in western societies. They're virtually voiceless, in fact, and that marginalization is something the likes of ISIS have capitalized on, tbh. People like this guy are actually probably a pretty great promotional tool for Islamic extremists as they can point to people like him and say "Look, these westerners don't respect or value you, your culture or your faith! Come and join us and you won't have to put up with it!"

The whole thing honestly just sounds like an outlet for some bigots to take shots at a community they don't like, and in turn just feeds into the marginalization of Muslim communities that has in part given rise to the number of young western Muslims taking off to Syria and Iraq in search of "better things".

stefanovich

PressRun wrote: »

I never really understand the intention behind these kinds of cartoons. What are they hoping to achieve by doing it? Is it supposed to be satire? Because if it is, it's not very good. The best satire punches up, not down, and regardless of whatever the likes of Wilders believe, Muslims are not powerful in western societies. They're virtually voiceless, in fact, and that marginalization is something the likes of ISIS have capitalized on, tbh. People like this guy are actually probably a pretty great promotional tool for Islamic extremists as they can point to people like him and say "Look, these westerners don't respect or value you, your culture or your faith! Come and join us and you won't have to put up with it!"

The whole thing honestly just sounds like an outlet for some bigots to take shots at a community they don't like, and in turn just feeds into the marginalization of Muslim communities that has in part given rise to the number of young western Muslims taking off to Syria and Iraq in search of "better things".

Okay, so people can mock Christians and Jews and it's no big deal. Mock muslims and they want you dead...

Why are you defending this bull****?

frostyjacks

I'm against mocking someone's religion, but I don't see why they should be that hypersensitive over the drawing of an image. It doesn't even have to be an offensive image either afaik, just the image itself.

The argument that they shouldn't show those cartoons in case something bad happens just sounds like cowardice to me. I'd have hated to be in the trenches with those surrender-monkeys, waving a white flag before a shot's even been fired.

dlouth15

Deleted User wrote: »

Afaik, to all who refer to jokes about Islam, it is not humour that is the main issue, but making a picture of Muhammed. Billy Connolly and Jim Jeffries and others may tell jokes, but that's not as offensive to the fanatics as creating an image.

Also novels like Satanic Verses.

PressRun

Streetwalker wrote: »

Stupid stupid idea. I'm sorry but why provoke these guys? Just leave them to it. Like poking a bear with a stick and then being surprised when the thing mauls you to death.

Tbh, and maybe I'm being cynical, but sometimes I think these people are being deliberately provocative in the hopes that something actually will happen and it'll give them the opportunity to say "I told you so".

Nodin

MathDebater wrote: »

What were the motives of the Charlie Hebdo murderers if not a few cartoons?

The Charlie Hebdo lads had a go at everyone, perfectly legitmate political/social satire. Dear geert (a) isn't a cartoonist and (b) seems a bit fixated with one religion and those of darker hued skin.