Cartoons

[Boo-chan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669210.stm

You can find the cartoons in question in this article.... it was rather hard to find them I must say.

I can understand why some people would find these cartoons offensive, although they are rather mild compared to some political cartoons I have seen. Compared to the reaction to them they seem positively harmless.

People may not like the picture of Islam that these cartoons paint, but they should be asking themselves why other people see their religion in this light.

Quote:

The paper published the cartoons last September after a Danish author had complained that he could not find an artist to illustrate a (respectful) book about Muhammad. According to Islam it is blasphemy to depict the prophet. To test to what extent freedom of expression had been affected in Denmark the paper put out a call to some forty illustrators to send them pictures of Muhammad. Only twelve dared to send them drawings, which were subsequently published in the paper to illustrate an article on censorship and freedom of speech. The cartoons were pretty mild by Western standards. We have seen worse, and are quite certain this would never have been published by Jyllands-Posten. Nevertheless the publication of the cartoons led to rioting and death threats were directed at the paper and some of the cartoonists.

[Dan]

I think you are worng, disrimation agisted relgion, any relgion, is wrong. Poelop thinking one way or another about it dose not justify such cartoons or views. At one time alot of peoleop in to U.S. thought that peleop with difrent colored skin should be salves, dose that justify the atack? Whould you say " they should be asking themselves why other people see their [them] in this light." in such a case? Do you think they whont peoleop to see them in that light? There are just a few peoleop of the same relgion that do thess things and yet they all get discrimated agisted. If we did that with other relgions the chatloic church whould be gone by now.

[Amailer]

I think printing the cartoon was hell wrong, and re-printing it on other EU papers just made things even worse....

But I don't support violent protests either, but they do have the right to protest against thi.

[Boo-chan]

Protesting what you don't like is perfectly all right. Not buying products from certain countries is perfectly all right. However, death threats and burning embassies is certainly not all right.

I fail to see how the cartoons themselves are offensive, other than the fact that the Islamic religion does not allow images of Muhamed to be published. However, I don't see any reason why this should apply to non-believers. The cartoons depict things which the Islamic religion can be easily be perceived as. When people are afraid to produce illustrations for a book because of being killed by the believers that they will offend then that is a far worse problem than offending people by publishing cartoons.

[Delos]

Boo-chan wrote:

I fail to see how the cartoons themselves are offensive, other than the fact that the Islamic religion does not allow images of Muhamed to be published. However, I don't see any reason why this should apply to non-believers. The cartoons depict things which the Islamic religion can be easily be perceived as. When people are afraid to produce illustrations for a book because of being killed by the believers that they will offend then that is a far worse problem than offending people by publishing cartoons.

From what I've read on this topic, a major argument being presented is the cartoonist's "Right to blaspheme". You know, something like freedom of speech or thereabouts.
This is all well and good, and having rights is just down right awsome. But before we get too giddy and start doing the "We-Have-Rights!" dance, let's take a step back and read the fineprint. Ok, so technically we're stepping forward...
Anyhow, the point being that every Right comes with a Responsibility. So while drawing such cartoons was completely legit - why would one be so insensitive. Islam has their reasons for prohibiting the depiction of their Prophets, and perhaps it is an unreasonable thing to ask of people - but we're not really in a position to judge that now are we?
So, despite many non-believers find several ounces (aye, mayhaps a pound!) of humour in these satirical caraicatures, they still do so at the expense of others who have quite clearly expressed their wish to the contrary.
As for your point on 'Islam being easily perceived thusly', I know you already know this but I'll just mention that the popular portrayal that we get is that of extremists who have taking the Qu'ran and have focused their entire mental energy on a set of lines that may or may not have been translated correctly. For instance, there is nothing in the Qu'ran that talks about women having to be subserviant to men - this is a cultural creation that has solidified through the ages.
This doubles with the whole 'people being killed for drawing cartoons'. If they are going to be targetted, it is by these rather manic extremists who are giving an otherwise beautiful religion quite the tarnished reputation.

So, in summary: Cartoons good, rights good, responsibilites are not negligible. Everything you need to know you learnt in kindergarden - play nice, share, and always wash your hands.

Disclaimer: This was opinion. Don't quote me on any of the comments I've made, some may be somewhat erroneous in their factual basis. Though I try to maintain some level of accuracy, memories are not trustworthy - no matter what those infomercialists tell you.
Additionally, my last comment was in no way an attempt to summarize and reduce all that one learns in kindergarden into a single statement.

[Dan]

Once again i disagree (to boo). I think that perdusime is far worse then death threats. Tho i am not justify the death threts they are still wrong and i in no way sport them.

The news paper had no buisness printing thos catroons and should repsect there views if they do not whont an image of him printed. It is not like it is hurting the paper to not print them.

Also just becuse peoleop think somthing of a relgion or gorup and some members of that gorup do atack that way dose not justify labing the gorup.

Edit to repsond to Delos post: Althougth freespeah is good we (at least in canada) do not have the right to hate speah. We most be talrent of others based on relgion, disblaity, sex, ect. This is in the human rights chaters and not even free speash can overide it.

Also on freespeash. Yes we have the right to our own options and to say them but this is difrent form publishingment in a news papaer. News papers for the most part are spsotied to be unbasied and not invale relgion, disblity, sex, ect.

[Boo-chan]

Its not the death threats that is particularly worrying. Its the fact that in the past some of those threats have been followed through which is.

Globe and Mail wrote:

For dialogue and debate to flourish, citizens must be allowed the maximum freedom to say what is on their minds, even if it is provocative, insulting, inflammatory, or, yes, blasphemous," it said.

That pretty much covers it, free speech with limits is not free speech and that is why I disagree with certain aspects of the hate laws. Once you start putting limits on what you can and can not say then you can no longer claim to have free speech.

By the way, all newspapers are biased, that is why there is usually more than one in each city. That is why I like Google News because it allows you to see the same story through multiple biases

[Dan]

Simpley you can not have the free speah you talk of and human rights conexisting. So it comes down to this: what is more impornt, ones right to publish hate materals or ones right to be able to exits freely with out disrmataion based on racie, relgion, disbaility, sex, ect. Obvesbly the canadian goverment as well as many others and the U.N. picked then 2nd.

[Naveg]

To me, this is just another example of a problem that wouldn't happen if religion did not exist. It seems that the problem that is religion is only growing everyday.

However, since that problem will likely never be dealt with, I will contribute my stance on this issue.

The cartoons are of a satirical nature, much of the kind you see drawn about politicians and other figures. They represent an opinion and nothing more. Is there something wrong with that? No there isn't. This is an issue of free speech. I am aware that religious zealots do not believe in free speech, but frankly, I do. And good for the papers that do as well.

Secondly, if the muslims don't like seeing drawings of their prophet, then they shouldn't read the papers it's published in.

Thirdly, the muslims are guilty of the most heinous hypocrisy possible on many counts, this is simply a single example. They are up in arms about these cartoons, and yet do they hesitate to defile Jewish or American figures in such a manner? Of course not. In fact, muslims are the most hateful people on earth when it comes to issues like this. All you need to do is take a look at the reaction to this whole business to see that. Burning danish flags because of the acts of a single danish paper? Unheard of. These muslims are uncivilized savages. They kill for the sake of killing. Some even say they kill to prove that muslims are not violent. LOL

I'm sick of hearing muslims whine about racism against islam when all they do is call for the complete destruction of the Jews, Israel, and America, and the values those groups represent.

[mod:f579625de5="Hacker Dan"]
Please do not make staments about relgiones or minorniy gorups as a hole on this site. Your are intiled to your rasims and perdiumes (apprently) but you are not initeled to clasify a minoty gorup as being "the most hatefull people on earth" or that they "kill for the sake of killing" on this site as long as i am an admin.
[/mod:f579625de5]

[Dan]

This type of issues whould still exists if relgion did not. Poeleop discrimate agisted other things then relgion. Just look at slaviry.

Whould you saying this is so good if it was the KKK writining articals agisted peoleop of color or making cartoons as such? The "satirical nature" dose not chage the fact that they are discrimatiing agisted an gourp of peoleop.

That view that "if you don't like it don't read it" is so wrong. Every one should be able to read a public papaer with out being offended or being discrimated agisted.

This issues (freespeah vs humanrights) is geting a lot more light thess days and it can even been seen at my uni, lakehead, where the student uinon's borad of directs have taken acuaction agisted the enginering socity for writing a newpaper that had exteramly sexist content as well as anti-homsexual content. Of corse the engierners aruge that they should be able to print what ever they whont to and that peoleop do not have to read it if they don't whont to even tho the news paper is handed out all over the campus. This issues is so heated at this univiesry that there has been many applies to the jewsial review cominity and lawyers invaled.

My point by this is that it is not quite a black or white area but a gray one. We all like free speah but should it over ride human rights? Both are exteramly imporent to a free socity and one with out ether one is not turely free. But what do we do when they overlap?

[Naveg]

Hacker Dan wrote:

Whould you saying this is so good if it was the KKK writining articals agisted peoleop of color or making cartoons as such? The "satirical nature" dose not chage the fact that they are discrimatiing agisted an gourp of peoleop.

Of course it's discrimination. But when the Toronto Star publishes risque cartoons about Israeli figures, does the Jewish community in Toronto start burning canadian flags in the streets, and start killing Torontonians just because? Didn't think so.

The issue is not about the discrimination. That happens everywhere, and against everyone. It's the nature of media and of life. Most people are able to accept that discrimination will always exist.

The issue here is the inappropriate, uncivilised reaction. Instead of writing letters to the editors of the papers politely asking for an apology, these people go into the streets, burn flags, and kill people. And then they wonder why newspapers depict Mohammed with a bomb for a brain. That cartoonist was simply depicting in ink what these people are depicting in actions.

[Naveg]

Hacker Dan wrote:

you are not initeled to clasify a minoty gorup as being "the most hatefull people on earth" or that they "kill for the sake of killing" on this site as long as i am an admin.

Tell me, if not for the sake of killing, and if not because they are the most hateful people, then why do they kill? I'm sorry if you find my comments to extreme, but this is the nature of the world. These muslim extremists are the only people who would kill over an issue like this.

Let me clarify for all: I am referring here solely to muslim extremists. I know, as much as any of you, that there are millions of muslims out there who do not share the views of these people.

[Delos]

Naveg wrote:

Let me clarify for all: I am referring here solely to muslim extremists. I know, as much as any of you, that there are millions of muslims out there who do not share the views of these people.

[peeks out]
Perhaps you ought to stop referring to these nihilists as 'Muslim extremists'. Putting the 'Muslim' in there suggests that they are somehow doing what they do in the name of religion. And don't get started on Jihad, that is something completely different.
The Qu'ran, in fact, condemns the killing of innocent people - which is exactly what terrorism does. It so happens that the Western media has taken several verses out of it and misquoted them to seem as though it promotes violence. This is utterly ridiculous. Why would the holy scriptures of an entire civilization encourage people to go about painting the streets an off-haeme colour?
So the extremists are just that, obsessive people with twisted beliefs that attempt to express their lunatic desires through wanton violence.

On a side note, is there not a distinction between Jewish and Zionists? (In reference to the Israel comment). Just curious.

[Boo-chan]

Well the people we are talking about are not nihilists, but they can be refered to as Muslim extremists. The pertinent detail is that they feel that they themselves are muslims and what they are doing is justified by their religion.

Hacker Dan I think you are forgetting that any position can be seen as descrimatory if viewed from the proper viewpoint. If you published a satyrical cartoon about same-sex marriage you can be seen as being descrimatory against homosexuals. However, if you publish a cartoon that presents same-sex marriage as positive, you just managed to commit blasphemy in several different religions.

The important thing about freedom of speech is that people should be allowed to state anything they want. If it offends you, there is always a number of ways to peacefully make your displeasure known. Also no one forces you to listen to something you disagree with(unless its in school which is a slightly different matter).

But as soon as you declare something is outside the realm of free speech that begins to cause problems. Ok, since its against a certain religion to show pictures of their religious leader you don't do that. So then how long does it take before you decide you shouldn't write articles about why the teachings of that religion are wrong?

[Martin]

Hacker Dan wrote:

Whould you saying this is so good if it was the KKK writining articals agisted peoleop of color or making cartoons as such? The "satirical nature" dose not chage the fact that they are discrimatiing agisted an gourp of peoleop.

I completely think that the KKK should be allowed to publish whatever they want. I am a firm believer of freedom of speech. As long as the KKK's actions to not hurt the freedoms of other people, they should be completely free to do as they please.

That's what freedom is all about. I don't agree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it. We should strive for a lack of discrimination through education, not through censorship. Taboos are always a bad thing.

Some cartoonist drew a slightly offensive comic. Who cares? It doesn't matter, and it's certainly not worth killing people over. Killing people is censorship, and that's something that I am strongly opposed to - when the guy with the biggest gun gets to decide what people are allowed to think, it's a big step backwards.