Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

mike65 · 01-02-2006 10:38PM #1

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 · 01-02-2006 11:32PM

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 · 02-02-2006 06:14AM

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 · 02-02-2006 12:21PM

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 · 02-02-2006 12:24PM

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 · 02-02-2006 12:36PM

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 · 02-02-2006 12:39PM

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 · 02-02-2006 12:57PM

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 · 02-02-2006 02:33PM

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 · 02-02-2006 02:36PM

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 · 02-02-2006 02:37PM

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 · 02-02-2006 02:37PM

Wibbs wrote:

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

Not according to the Beeb.

Wibbs · 02-02-2006 02:40PM

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 · 02-02-2006 02:43PM

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 · 02-02-2006 02:58PM

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 · 02-02-2006 02:59PM

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 · 02-02-2006 03:03PM

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 · 02-02-2006 03:34PM

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

the_dart · 02-02-2006 04:48PM

"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 · 02-02-2006 04:55PM

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 · 02-02-2006 05:24PM

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 · 02-02-2006 06:02PM

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 · 02-02-2006 06:53PM

"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 · 02-02-2006 06:55PM

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 · 02-02-2006 07:09PM

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 · 02-02-2006 07:23PM

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 · 02-02-2006 07:39PM

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 · 02-02-2006 08:14PM

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 · 02-02-2006 08:25PM

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 · 02-02-2006 08:26PM

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 · 02-02-2006 08:44PM

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?

Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

Comments