Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

Wibbs · 09-02-2006 12:42PM

Hobbes wrote:

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will get me a nice healthy settlement sum from the libel lawsuit" :v:

Never heard that one before.:D

Not sure why people go on about "bowing to muslim wishes". Point in fact the cartoons were offensive.

No argument there.

Basically in this case the Media pulled the pictures from being shown. Rarther then upset famous world figures. I guess there are double standards of who we can and can't insult.

True they were pulled. What would have happened if they weren't? Riots and flag burnings? Unlikely TBH. Angry letters and lawsuits possibly. Even that's a stretch. A comment peice in another newspaper would be the most likely

Also for those who missed it recently a South Park episode has been pulled from TV for being too offensive to catholics. .../... but the people who petitioned for its banning are also demanding that South Park be reviewed by the heads of Viacom (with the possible chance of banning it outright).

Fair enough, they are calling for a banning. Are they rioting in the streets. Are embassies being burned? Was a global hoohaa created by this? Can you imagine the uproar if you swapped the virgin mary in that episode with mohammed? Sheesh.

Hobbes, I fully agree with you that this whole cartoon thing was in poor taste, when you consider both the feelings of Muslims to their Prophet and their general ban on representations of same. We're singing from the same hymn sheet on this point. The immediate aftermath was handled badly by the media in europe too. The issue I have is the Muslim worlds reaction to it and the bullying tactics some of that faith are using to stifle all comment. Frankly I could care the big one over a few largely crude unfunny cartoons. My worry is that considered, intelligent debate in the media about Islam and the west may ultimately be the victim here.

flogen · 09-02-2006 12:47PM

woody wrote:

Well then why don't they sue ermmmmmm because that is to civilised they kill instead..... true to nature.........

Killing,rioting or burning embassies is a terrorists way of objecting let me see, they are killing there own people aswell...Hypocrites no more no less...

Hold on I will burn the Syrian Flag come to think of it the whole lot, will they like it NO but tough.... Double Standards Methinks... They are having their little protest or march tomorrow I am going to have a look to see what the boggies are going to be spouting, Sh1te most likely

Get back on topic, this is not for discussing the protests but the media coverage of them (and the cartoons)

woody · 09-02-2006 12:48PM

Suff wrote:

Its no surprize to get that kind of language from a Woody.

100% Zionist Israeli

Say and do what you like, it's showing what are you lot made of !

Reported for insulting behaviour, hey you report everyone else...

flogen · 09-02-2006 12:50PM

Hobbes wrote:

Also for those who missed it recently a South Park episode has been pulled from TV for being too offensive to catholics. (contains cartoon that was banned, may be offensive to catholics)
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002830.html#002830

Oh and not only was the episode banned but the people who petitioned for its banning are also demanding that South Park be reviewed by the heads of Viacom (with the possible chance of banning it outright).

Actually the show was not pulled from TV (see here) but some people thought it had been.
The only episode to have been pulled by Comedy Central was the Tom Cruise "come out of the closet" episode because they feared legal action; what does that say about the state of society today?

Hobbes · 09-02-2006 12:53PM

flogen wrote:

Actually the show was not pulled from TV (see here) but some people thought it had been.
The only episode to have been pulled by Comedy Central was the Tom Cruise "come out of the closet" episode because they feared legal action; what does that say about the state of society today?

Interesting. According to the earlier reports (linked off bagnews) it would appear someone high up in Viacom said they would be banned. Must go look and see if there was any further outrage.

Actually reading that link you gave me it appears they only stopped it being shown on the holy day related to it.

Wibbs · 09-02-2006 01:04PM

flogen wrote:

The only episode to have been pulled by Comedy Central was the Tom Cruise "come out of the closet" episode because they feared legal action; what does that say about the state of society today?

Religion again as apprently the ever litigous scientologists had a lot to do with it(which the episode really extracts the urine from. Is no faith safe from them?

). It's not the first example from that quarter. They use the weight of the law a lot. Others might take the example to heart. BTW The episode in question is freely available online. It's v funny too.

flogen · 09-02-2006 01:12PM

Wibbs wrote:

Religion again as apprently the ever litigous scientologists had a lot to do with it(which the episode really extracts the urine from. Is no faith safe from them? ). It's not the first example from that quarter. They use the weight of the law a lot. Others might take the example to heart. BTW The episode in question is freely available online. It's v funny too.

We're getting off topic somewhat but to just because Tom Cruise follows a religion doesn't mean the issue is religious.
I know Scientology was a part of the plot of the episode in question but the issue was (from what I understand) the blatent jokes made in reference to Tom Cruises sexuality, something he has sued over in the past.
I know it's online, and it was aired in America, but it won't travel to Europe with the rest of the series, sadly.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand

pH · 09-02-2006 01:26PM

Hobbes wrote:

The point is these people dropped items because they were found to be offensive to others. However in the case of the cartoons even after being told (quite peacefully) that the pictures were offensive ignored them and went and printed them in more papers (the author instigated this I might add).

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, apart from your opinion that they should not have been published, which is your opinion and you're entitled etc etc.

You seem to be skimming around but not saying that the newspaper should not be *allowed* publish these cartoons, or there should be a law and punishment for the media who publish ... are you saying this or merely saying that if asked for you advice you would have told them not to publish?

I think there is an argument on two levels, firstly whether they are offensive, but even then - *even* if they are offensive - newspapers can still publish offensive writing and images, they have that right in my opinion. It is better (but not necessary) that the 'offense' is balanced with some public good on the other side, which in this case it was - the original was actually raising the issue about depictions of mohammed, opening up a debate so to speak.

We simply cannot have a press where if anyone claims something is offensive it cannot be published, our newspapers would be blank apart from the Sudoku pages (thanks Jon Stewart) ... and we know what happens when we appoint censors and people who can 'tell offense when they see it'

To take an another example, to a sincere vegetarian - recipes involving meat could be genuinely offensive, in my opinion equally or more offensive than a cartoon of mohammed to a Muslim. If a number of vegetarians were to object tomorrow to meat based recipes in newspapers and magazines would you support them equaly?

ravenhead · 09-02-2006 01:29PM

I've just spent the last 30mins reading through this thread & I have to say I'm at a loss... I've seen the cartoon's also, they were sent to me by a friend in Israel & yes that could be seen as offensive but they could also be seen as they were meant, (at the time a political joke), I have great respect for all religions, cultures etc, but I do find the actions of people who follow Islam as very confusing, the Koran is not a book that encourages hate but a lot of these people seem to have it in their genetic
Make up to HATE everything that isn't ISLAM .. how anyone can justify what's been going on is beyond me, do YOU people not have any sense of humour at all??? Can you not laugh at yourselves????? You way of life has made people see you as terrorists, the same way that the whole world thinks that Ireland is full of alcoholics ... NOTHING (not even religion) gives you the right to threaten another persons life & whoever says otherwise will have to deal with their choices when their time comes...

Suff · 09-02-2006 01:34PM

Wibbs wrote:

Hobbes, I fully agree with you that this whole cartoon thing was in poor taste, when you consider both the feelings of Muslims to their Prophet and their general ban on representations of same.

Wibbs wrote:

The immediate aftermath was handled badly by the media in europe too.

Agree.

Wibbs wrote:

The issue I have is the Muslim worlds reaction to it and the bullying tactics some of that faith are using to stifle all comment.

Agree again

Wibbs wrote:

My worry is that considered, intelligent debate in the media about Islam and the west may ultimately be the victim here.

That would be ignorance from the Wests side IMO. but this has been an issue for years and not just now... example:

After 9/11 people started to read about Islam as if it was the influence behind these attacks. (if you have an hour or so see this) again we have this issue in europe.
I dont think that Muslims are showing the right attitude to solve this problem, Yes it was peaceful at the start in September and with the dismissive attitude from the Dan's (Goverment and Media) only fuled the anger to another level (sadly).

I dont see this going away soon, for Muslims it's another black point in their book against the west.

Freddie59 · 09-02-2006 01:37PM

Suff wrote:

100% Zionist Israeli

Isn't freedom of speech great Suff? A racist comment like that and you're not even banned. Imagine if someone called you a Radical fundametalist terrorist? I wonder would they be allowed continue as well. Glad to see you're exploiting Western freedoms to their fullest.

Suff · 09-02-2006 01:39PM

Freddie59 wrote:

Isn't freedom of speech great Suff? A racist comment like that and you're not even banned. Imagine if someone called you a Radical fundametalist terrorist? I wonder would they be allowed continue as well. Glad to see you're exploiting Western freedoms to their fullest.

it's not racist, I'm stating what he is

it'sl like me calling your a 100% Irish, it that racist?

By the way you did call me a Radical fundametalist terrorist !

back on topic please

Freddie59 · 09-02-2006 01:40PM

Hobbes wrote:

Point in fact the cartoons were offensive.

From a Muslim perspective. This, Mr Hobbes, is the free world - and, I repeat, we won't be bowing to the Muslims anyday soon. Ever thought of what our society would be like if Muslim 'values and traditions' were in force here?

Freddie59 · 09-02-2006 01:42PM

Suff wrote:

it's not racist, I'm stating what he is

it'sl like me calling your a 100% Irish, it that racist?

By the way you did call me a Radical fundametalist terrorist !

back on topic please

No I didn't - what I said was I wonder what would happen if someone called you that. Read the post my pro-Muslim friend. Could you not just call the person an Israeli. What you're doing is the equivalent of Unionists in the North calling Irish people Papists. Completely unacceptable.

Hobbes · 09-02-2006 01:49PM

Freddie59 wrote:

From a Muslim perspective.

So what you are basically saying is it is ok for the media to be offensive to muslims only and anything from your perspective shouldn't be allowed?

Suff · 09-02-2006 01:59PM

Hobbes wrote:

So what you are basically saying is it is ok for the media to be offensive to muslims only and anything from your perspective shouldn't be allowed?

Correct Hobbes

Iran should publish the Hollucost images they are not offensive to some Christians and Muslims.

Hobbes · 09-02-2006 02:02PM

pH wrote:

You seem to be skimming around but not saying that the newspaper should not be *allowed* publish these cartoons, or there should be a law and punishment for the media who publish ... are you saying this or merely saying that if asked for you advice you would have told them not to publish?

Not skirting around anything. I did a bit of reading on the back history of it just now.

Danish laws regarding the press are very lax to other countries and certainly to Ireland. They are allowed pretty much anything they want on the condition they agree to be brought to court over it.

There already exists a law in Denmark to cover Blasphemy as well, however it is rarely if ever enforced and in this instance it wasn't.

We need to stop comparing what is happening in Denmark vs here. The laws are so different I was surprised. So after reading that I can fully understand why the Danish would be up in arms about thier press rights being stifled.

At the same time the cartoons were offensive and were intended to be. The author was trying to say about self-censorship of pictures of Muhammad however he himself should of known that the religon just doesn't allow it (it has nothing to do with death threats). He could of gotten this point across just by printing normal pictures of Muhammad.

Of course that action would still of annoyed Muslims, however it is the reprinting of the cartoons after knowing they were offensive and that they portray a side of Islam that does not reflect the majority of the religon is what has the Muslim community so up in arms. In doing so it stirred up the fanatical minority side further perpetuating the myth that all of Islam are like this, again thanks to the Media.

There was no rioting until that happened.

The initial story was poor thinking, the media are to blame for inflaming the situation and the Danish government if they had paid attention could of stopped it getting out of hand long before the mess started.

Hobbes · 09-02-2006 02:03PM

Suff wrote:

Correct Hobbes

Iran should publish the Hollucost images they are not offensive to some Christians and Muslims.

That is not what I said I don't believe any country should be allowed to print something offensive if they know it is to begin with.

flogen · 09-02-2006 02:04PM

Final warning; get back on topic.
Even the slightest whiff of personal attacks from this point on will result in a ban and any single post which fails to deal with the topic at hand will also result in a ban.

You will not be told again.

ravenhead · 09-02-2006 02:08PM

But that's just it Hobbes, Muslims get up in arms & threaten to kill people if
Islam is discussed outside of a Muslim country, but they think nothing of teaching their people that killing westerners is righteous. Nothing gives any race of people the right to behave the way that muslims have since this started.

ShayHT · 09-02-2006 02:16PM

You are talking like every Muslim is out there rioting..... over a billion. We're talking minority here.

Muslims don't teach their people that killing westeners is righteous. Radical/fundamentals do...... By you're thinking all Irish are taught to kill british.

ravenhead wrote:

But that's just it Hobbes, Muslims get up in arms & threaten to kill people if Islam is discussed outside of a Muslim country, but they think nothing of teaching their people that killing westerners is righteous. Nothing gives any race of people the right to behave the way that muslims have since this started.

flogen · 09-02-2006 02:17PM

ravenhead banned from News/Media for 1 week for off topic posting as well as posting ignorant and frankly dangerous comments.

No one reply to his/her post or this one.

flogen · 09-02-2006 02:18PM

ShayHT wrote:

You are talking like every Muslim is out there rioting..... over a billion. We're talking minority here.

Muslims don't teach their people that killing westeners is righteous. Radical/fundamentals do...... By you're thinking all Irish are taught to kill british.

I know you posted that before I told people not to reply to it, however your post is still off topic.

Banned for 1 week.

Gegerty · 09-02-2006 02:20PM

Suff wrote:

Iran should publish the Hollucost images they are not offensive to some Christians and Muslims.

Are you talking about the competition that an Iranian paper is having to come up with the best anti-holocaust or anti-American cartoon? Well you can go ahead and say thats alright by you if you really want to be associated with that kind of thing. You could find yourself in a whole heap of trouble but go ahead. Notice how they're trying to drag America into this as well even though its got nothing to do with them. It's pathetic.

Suff · 09-02-2006 02:23PM

Ok most of us would agree that the Media has a hand in getting things out of order. and I would say both media's the West and the ME.

What should be done to solve this problem? is an appology from the newspaper/Goverment really the ideal solution?
I dont think so, they can say "We are sorry" but what's the garantee that nothing of the same offensive level would'nt be published again? and I'm talking about offensive to all religions.

Germany and France has both a law against any publication that offends the Hollucost, should they add religion as well?

I would say yes.

Suff · 09-02-2006 02:30PM

Gegerty wrote:

Are you talking about the competition that an Iranian paper is having to come up with the best anti-holocaust or anti-American cartoon? Well you can go ahead and say thats alright by you if you really want to be associated with that kind of thing. You could find yourself in a whole heap of trouble but go ahead. Notice how they're trying to drag America into this as well even though its got nothing to do with them. It's pathetic.

Read my post to understand my point. + where did you get america from??

If it's ok to publish offensive images of Muhammad then why is it so offensive to publish ones of the holocaust, the media is selecting what is offensive and what's not!? but isn't the media free to publish whatever they want under "Freedom of Speech" ?

some might say the holocaust is offensive to Jews, well the images are offensive to muslims! you cant have selected protection!

then they are hypocrites!

Wibbs · 09-02-2006 02:39PM

Suff wrote:

That would be ignorance from the Wests side IMO. but this has been an issue for years and not just now...

It would also be ignorance from the Islamic world as to our view on censorship of the media. The obvious thing that many in the Islamic world wanted the government to "stop" the Danish Papers. This suggests a lack of knowledge on the part of many in the Islamic world that in the west, while the press may have political affiliations, they are not controlled by the government(the whole area of control of the western media is a thought for another thread methinks). In many if the Islamic nations they are directly controlled by their governments.

Hobbes wrote:

That is not what I said I don't believe any country should be allowed to print something offensive if they know it is to begin with.

This is where we part company, I'm afraid. What is offensive? It means different things to different people at different times. I think they should be allowed to print what they like, regardless(not countries per se. The press, I'm refering to here). If you go down the route of non offence, what stories can we print? At some level, many stories of public interest could be construed by many as offensive. A piece on neo nazi's could easily be seen as offensive by them. Would you not print it and shine a light on their views? Any other political group/people/faith/ would be the same. Obviously some balance is needed, but the rule of law should be one check for a start. Judging any commentary, whether cartoon, TV or printed article on the basis of possible offence smacks too much of thin end of the wedgism to wider censorship of the press and freedom of speech, such as it may be. We need more, not less.

Wibbs · 09-02-2006 02:46PM

Suff wrote:

If it's ok to publish offensive images of Muhammad then why is it so offensive to publish ones of the holocaust, the media is selecting what is offensive and what's not!? but isn't the media free to publish whatever they want under "Freedom of Speech" ?

some might say the holocaust is offensive to Jews, well the images are offensive to muslims! you cant have selected protection!

Agreed. I think everything is open to comment(and indeed some level of ridicule). If I don't like what I see, hear or read, I have the mature choice to switch off, change papers, disagree, sue or ignore same(the latter being the best option by far). If we treat every fringe/special group like spoiled brats we're on a hiding to nowhere and that includes them all, not just the small group of fundamentalist Muslims getting threatening over this issue. We are not children, we do have a choice.

flogen · 09-02-2006 02:47PM

Wibbs wrote:

This is where we part company, I'm afraid. I think they should be allowed to print what they like, regardless(not countries per se. The press, I'm refering to here). If you go down the route of non offence, what stories can we print? At some level, many stories of public interest could be construed by many as offensive. A piece on neo nazi's could easily be seen as offensive by them. Would you not print it and shine a light on their views? Any other political group/people/faith/ would be the same. Obviously some balance is needed, but the rule of law should be one check for a start. Judging any commentary, whether cartoon, TV or printed article on the basis of possible offence smacks too much of thin end of the wedgism to wider censorship of the press and freedom of speech, such as it may be. We need more, not less.

I see your point regarding this, but all printed content is supposedly done so in the public interest, and any insult caused is supposed to be outweighed by the public interest.
I don't think any public interest was served by these cartoons; and while I agree with the original point of them I feel that ignorance on the part of the cartoonists and editors has allowed them to be taken as offensive.
In this case the hurt caused to the Muslim religion (as we all know, printing any cartoons, in any context is a no-no in their religion) has not been counterbalanced by a public interest, the point was not strong enough to carry the cartoons. As I've said before, the point could have been carried using a multitude of different images, none that depict Muhammed.
Now what we have, as a result of media ignorance, is a chance for extremists to attack the west (and extremists fuel their fires through ignorance too)

woody · 09-02-2006 02:48PM

*mod edit*
Dangerous and ignorant comments against Islam; if you have a point to make on a religion, ensure that it is in the context of the debate and is factually accurate and supported

Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

Comments