Draw Mohammed Day, May 20th

robindch · 14-05-2010 05:25PM

sensibleken wrote: »

i presume that when you draw a picture of mohammed you will send it to some islamic fundamentalists with a photo, your address and a list of your allergies. being so brave

I'm sure Mark will be happy to do that, if you agree to send the same guys your name and address, and a signed, damn-them-to-hell sermon on why they are practicing a false religion of hate.

MikeC101 · 14-05-2010 05:30PM

sensibleken wrote: »

no i dont. those things are being yourself and not a deliberate attempt to annoy people. if your gay just to annoy people or drinking just to annoy people then yes your a dick.

So, if I do it to express how ridiculous I think the concept of not being allowed draw a picture of a historical character because of the views of a certain group of violent fundamentalists of a certain religion, am I a dick? Added to that I have fairly strong views on freedom of expression, and a strong dislike of pandering to religious viewpoints.

And bear in mind this is a thread in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, and no one is forced to look at it.

Also, there have been plenty of images of Mohammed created by Muslims throughout history. http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:32PM

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure Mark will be happy to do that, if you agree to send the same guys your name and address, and a signed, damn-them-to-hell sermon on why they are practicing a false religion of hate.

well how about i write them a letter based on my views. im good with that. ive never been good at damn them to hell stuff as i dont believe in hell.

storm2811 · 14-05-2010 05:34PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because the muslim belief is that muslims should not draw mohammed, its a personal belief, not an impersonal one because the act of me drawing mohammed has no effect on any else, unless the choose for it to have an effect.

If you are going to ignore the rest of what I said, then why even bother to quote this?

Its not offensive. Its against muslim rules which only apply to muslims and some muslims seem to want to get offended when other people dont want to live by their rules.

Exactly, they make of everything and anything and its all nonsense, just a bit of fun, but to make a peep against islam is when all the complaints and threats come in. That is what should be condemned. Everything is up for being made fun of. If people learned to ignore the jokes they dont like and once in a while laugh along at the onec made in friendly jest everyone will get along a lot more happily.

I wasn't trying to have some huge debate with you,I was just stating my opinion!

Ugh I'm out,this has gotten so repetitive.:rolleyes:

kiffer · 14-05-2010 05:37PM

fufureida wrote: »

Agreed. I'm a Muslim and I was shocked by the Muslim reaction to the drawings of the Prophet (PBUH).
...
[some Danish guy] must have known the consequence to his actions; he provoked violence and I'm pretty sure he knew the emotionally volatile Muslim community would have responded badly) can't be the worse thing thrown at the Prophet (PBUH)?

So you as a Muslim were surprised by the reaction of other Muslims to the cartoons... but you think that the artist should not have been surprised by it?
Interesting...

The thing is we as muslims do not believe any one has the right to illustrate any holy figure; we do not consider ourselves worthy to depict such a divine being.

I was of the understanding that it was actually more like the depictions of divine figures may cause Idolatry of the images rather than worship of God/Allah.

But so long as it's all in good humour and fun, you guys can have your ' draw Mohammad day ' just please try not to be disrespectful... I'm all for freedom of speech but freedom of insult is another matter all together. A piss take isn't nice... Neither is it*to make fun of any ones beliefs...*

... We can have our draw Mohammad day ... thanks... I didn't realise you could forbid/stop it but thanks...
Interestingly even basic images of Mohammad seem to set off people ...

But sure, Happy Holidays! Allah loves you all ( hopefully ...)

Happy Birthday!

Mark Hamill · 14-05-2010 05:39PM

storm2811 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to have some huge debate with you,I was just stating my opinion!

Oh come on. You cant just state your opinion on an internet forum and expect no-one to respond, this isn't a personal blog.

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:41PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

So, if I do it to express how ridiculous I think the concept of not being allowed draw a picture of a historical character because of the views of a certain group of violent fundamentalists of a certain religion, am I a dick? Added to that I have fairly strong views on freedom of expression, and a strong dislike of pandering to religious viewpoints.

And bear in mind this is a thread in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, and no one is forced to look at it.

Also, there have been plenty of images of Mohammed created by Muslims throughout history. http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/

very good points. theres actuall an exhibition in the chester beaty library that shows lots of depictions of mohammed.

but i get what your saying. personally i dont care if you offend violent extremists, those guys are dicks. i mock extremists all the time

but this looks to me as a blanket insult towards all muslims. a bit like someone pissing on a slagging of ireland to offend the ira. but then i dont really care when someone does that

storm2811 · 14-05-2010 05:42PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Oh come on. You cant just state your opinion on an internet forum and expect no-one to respond, this isn't a personal blog.

Yes but we're all just saying pretty much the same thing over and over again but in different ways,I'm sure everyone else will tire of it soon aswell.

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:55PM

storm2811 wrote: »

Yes but we're all just saying pretty much the same thing over and over again but in different ways,I'm sure everyone else will tire of it soon aswell.

yup im off to the pub. nice talking to most of you have a good weekend

rccaulfield · 15-05-2010 12:29AM

Its a good thing If anyones going to display pictures anywhere i would say ''to all Muslim extremists'' on it somewhere.;)

liamw · 15-05-2010 01:07PM

Galvasean · 15-05-2010 01:39PM

Interesting.. is labelling something that isn't Mohammed as Mohammed just as bad? Oh, I don't know, lets say a teddy bear.

kiffer · 15-05-2010 03:05PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Interesting.. is labelling something that isn't Mohammed as Mohammed just as bad? Oh, I don't know, lets say a teddy bear.

What about this?

5uspect · 15-05-2010 03:26PM

Does this count?

o
/|\
/\

MrPudding · 15-05-2010 04:37PM

storm2811 wrote: »

unless its a defamatory drawing of mohammed

Clearly we are not talking about legality here. I don’t believe anyone is taking a legal action against the cartoon artists, which would fail for the reasons other posters have mentioned, they are just threatening and attacking the.

MikeC101 wrote: »

It's not to do with whose in control, I'm just pointing out a common misunderstanding in regards to freedom of speech - it means the state can't restrict your right, but it does not apply to private forums.

Not quite true. The state can and does restrict your right. In fact, the very article the quoted allows for it:

Article 10 ECHR, section 2 wrote:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't see how - firstly, slander generally refers to spoken word, so you might be thinking of libel. Secondly, you can't libel the dead under Irish law as far as I know. Thirdly, I don't see how drawing a picture of someone constitutes libel.

I think it is more accurate to say slander refers to non permanent transmission of material, rather than being limited to mere speech. Libel covers something that is permanent and could be a drawing, though obviously the person defamed must be alive.

MrP

liamw · 15-05-2010 05:06PM

5uspect wrote: »

Does this count?
o
/|\
/\

No, you have to label it Mohammed

MikeC101 · 15-05-2010 05:10PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Not quite true. The state can and does restrict your right. In fact, the very article the quoted allows for it:

Oh I know - but I didn't mean to get into the area of what the state can and can't restrict, I was just pointing out that the concept of freedom of speech in the regard referred to doesn't extend to things like a privately run website.

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it is more accurate to say slander refers to non permanent transmission of material, rather than being limited to mere speech.

It is alright, but I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive though - sure it refers to non permanent transmission of material, but I'd still say that generally it refers to speech, given the vast majority of slander cases are for spoken words -though I think there's some debate as to what usenet / irc / bulletin board discussions count as.

MrPudding · 15-05-2010 05:38PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

It is alright, but I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive though - sure it refers to non permanent transmission of material, but I'd still say that generally it refers to speech, given the vast majority of slander cases are for spoken words -though I think there's some debate as to what usenet / irc / bulletin board discussions count as.

I would guess that in the majority of cases this would be correct. But it should also be noted that just because the material in question is spoken does not mean it can't be libel.

MrP

ColmDawson · 15-05-2010 06:31PM

5uspect wrote: »

Does this count?
o
/|\
/\

I like how he starts walking to the left when you quote him.

5uspect · 15-05-2010 06:48PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

I like how he starts walking to the left when you quote him.

Who? Mo?

MikeC101 · 15-05-2010 07:06PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I would guess that in the majority of cases this would be correct. But it should also be noted that just because the material in question is spoken does not mean it can't be libel.

MrP

As RTE have found out on more than one occasion

(Am I correct in thinking libel is treated more harshly than slander by the courts?)

kiffer · 15-05-2010 07:30PM

liamw wrote: »

No, you have to label it Mohammed

Or... considering the context of the thread is it enough to just not label it not Mohammad? 5uspect has refereed to it as Mo so it is a depiction of Mohammed...

MrPudding · 15-05-2010 07:52PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

As RTE have found out on more than one occasion

(Am I correct in thinking libel is treated more harshly than slander by the courts?)

I think it would depend on the circumstances. The main difference is that libel is actionable per se, there is no need to show there was damage. For slander the claimant must show they were damaged.

MrP

robindch · 16-05-2010 12:19AM

MikeC101 wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking libel is treated more harshly than slander by the courts?

Both are forms of defamation, but slander is generally understood to be spoken defamation, while libel is written defamation.

The UK and the US view the two differently. In the UK, the onus is upon an alleged defamer to prove an allegation true, while in the US, it's the other way around, and the allegedly defamed party must demonstrate that the allegation is false. Hence the term libel tourism, where people who feel they've been defamed take cases in jurisdictions more likely to produce a more favorable outcome.

The UK's fairly punitive laws are likely to change over the next while, following the disastrous result for the BCA, an organization made up from the UK's chiropracters, in the case they took against the much-respected science writer Simon Singh.

MrPudding · 16-05-2010 12:57AM

robindch wrote: »

The UK and the US view the two differently. In the UK, the onus is upon an alleged defamer to prove an allegation true, while in the US, it's the other way around, and the allegedly defamed party must demonstrate that the allegation is false. Hence the term libel tourism, where people who feel they've been defamed take cases in jurisdictions more likely to produce a more favorable outcome.

Funny, we were just talking about this the other day in class. London is the defamation capital, apparently.

robindch wrote: »

The UK's fairly punitive laws are likely to change over the next while, following the disastrous result for the BCA, an organization made up from the UK's chiropracters, in the case they took against the much-respected science writer Simon Singh.

Yeah, sometimes they do get it wrong, but they got it right in the end. But the damage is done, as alluded to by the judge in the appeal. If you are interested, here is the appeal case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/350.html

MrP

axer · 16-05-2010 11:41AM

Enough talking...back to drawing.

Here is my attempt using my laptops touchpad.

Galvasean · 16-05-2010 01:57PM

mmmmmmmm sacrilicious.............

Funglegunk · 16-05-2010 03:46PM

Morlar · 16-05-2010 04:06PM

Lars Vilks has yet again been attacked, this time his house set on fire

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0516/breaking9.html

Cartoonist goes into hiding

Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist whose sketch of the Prophet Muhammad enraged many Muslims, has gone into hiding following an arson attack on his home.

The attack came only days after Mr Vilks, who depicted the Prophet Mohammad with the body of a dog in 2007, was head-butted while giving a lecture about freedom of speech at the University of Uppsala, about 70km from Stockholm.

Mr Vilks has started sleeping elsewhere since an attempted arson attack against his home in Nyhamnslage, southern Sweden, on Friday.

Vilks said he has decided to sleep elsewhere as a precaution, but doesn't think there will be another attack against him right now because of increased police patrols.

"During the day I don't think it is dangerous because I can keep watch over myself," he told the Associated Press news agency. "But I have to realise that I can't be there during the night.".

The artist has faced numerous threats over his 2007 sketch. Earlier this year, US investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane," and who now faces life in prison. She has pleaded not guilty.

Swedish police arrested a 21-year-old man late Saturday and a 19-year-old man on Sunday on suspciion of the attempted arson attack. Earlier Saturday, they had found bottles filled with gasoline and minor fire damage to Vilks' home. Several windows at the artist's house had also been smashed. Vilks was not home during the attack.

Vilks drew his picture of Muhammad more than a year after 12 cartoons of the prophet in a Danish newspaper sparked furious protests in Muslim countries. Images of Muhammad, even favorable ones, are considered blasphemous by many Muslims.

ColmDawson · 16-05-2010 08:09PM

For fuck's sake, this is unacceptable.

Draw Mohammed Day, May 20th

Comments