anti islam cartoons required

[Quirkafleeg]

Presumably Dreddd you wont mind being called an idiotic wanker... I mean it's all free speach. And the BNP application form is in the post.

[+rufus+]

Dreddd,
Please refer back to Fegbarr's Haiku like genius.
Then....step away from the keyboard.
R

[DavidXBrunt]

Mine too Krusty. So were you until you changed your i.d. therefore bypassing the killfile.

[Mudcrab]

Hmm, good thread.

I believe the the Danish newspaper folk, and even more so the other ones that reprinted it are, without doubt, guilty of inciting hatred among half the world's people. Or maybe they didn't know that portrayals of the prophet were forbidden. Yeah, sure. What amazes me even more is the fact that no British papers did the same. Either they were gagged straight away (yeah, freedom of the press my arse, if you think that, you're sadly deluded I suspect) or perhaps just scared because they work next to whatever tube station might be targeted next.

Speaking of Nazi Germany in the 30's, I wonder what kind of satirical cartoons were being printed then?

Again, no surprise from any of the racist, fascist "new roman empire" they call Europe.

So in conclusion, on the subject of freedom of speech, just because you can say it, doesn't mean you should. Then again, it just depends how little you care about who you're insulting. I feel there are greater things that can be done with freedom of speech than printing a cartoon.

Buy British bacon only folks :o)

[judge dreddd]

BNP ? lol

some of my best mates are indian,asian,african english folk

i am for 'no borders' and a true 'internationalist' but am totally against extremism and religion

[judge dreddd]

you do realise, this will mean tooth artists considering poppin in a mohammed character into tooth to get tooth in the news dont ya ?

btw, the crusades were evil too

boooo to religion

Link: http://www.icu.com/icu/colonel/Jewish.Pride/jp6.html" target="_blank">nasty crusades

[Satanist]

I got a haircut on Sunday. Its a belter. I really enjoyed exerting my right to get a haircut. It was almost as good as exerting my right to post self indulgent shit on the web.

Cheers!

[judge dreddd]

your right, i am ashamed, i will remove myself from the board :(

[starscape]

When Europe was tired of the yoke of feudalism, the aristocracy was overthrown in favour of democracy.  In the Middle East, the same thing happened at around the same time, except there was a religious revolution.  As I now live in the Middle East, I can see there's a completely different mind frame, where a moral society is more important than individual freedom.  The strength of your belief in God probably makes you believe one is greater than the other.

Also, the Middle East is still developing (not necessarily into the Western model).  Anti-Christian comments when Europe was ruled by religion would have caused far more violence (not that I'm excusing the burning of embassies).

Chris

[Dudley]

Ignoring dreddd's trolling...


Does nobody think that a religion is a different thing to a race?  

Keeping with the Nazi germany thing for a moment, Jews there were targeted because of their race.  Only 20% of Muslims are Arabic, incidentally.

[Roger Godpleton]

Aren't most of the "arabs" in Sudan closer to African descent as well?

[judge dreddd]

"When Europe was tired of the yoke of feudalism, the aristocracy was overthrown in favour of democracy. In the Middle East, the same thing happened at around the same time, except there was a religious revolution. As I now live in the Middle East, I can see there's a completely different mind frame, where a moral society is more important than individual freedom. The strength of your belief in God probably makes you believe one is greater than the other. "

Nothing wrong with islamic countries having islamic laws but should they really govern the press in other countries ?

[longmanshort]

What amazes me even more is the fact that no British papers did the same. Either they were gagged straight away (yeah, freedom of the press my arse, if you think that, you're sadly deluded I suspect) or perhaps just scared because they work next to whatever tube station might be targeted next.

Or maybe they refused to join in the pathetic childish stupidity of papers on the continent in pouring petrol on the fire?

They weren't 'gagged', as you put it, in the slightest. For once, they showed some restraint - and almost all of them printed editorials saying they supported freedom of speech but felt there were attendant responsibilities. This might ring hollow considering their usual activity and they might not exactly be angels, but for once they should be congratulated on being sensible.

And dreddd: please, just pack it in. It's becoming something of a bore.

[starscape]

They don't govern the press in other countries.  Hence the cartoons.  But they're just as free to express their anger as the anti-racism movement.  They are offended and want to protest.  Surely that's part of freedom too.  As long as it's in line with basic laws and not calling for murder (that's quite a different line entirely and far more offensive to Islamic teaching than an image of the prophet - in fact, there's a debate in there itself on what images are banned but it's a far more chin-stroking dull argument).

[Dudley]

As most people don't seem to know why the cartoons were printed, or indeed much about the background to this story:

Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in several European newspapers have caused outrage among some Muslims. The BBC News website looks at the key questions behind the row.

How did the row develop?

The cartoons were first published in September 2005 by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They were later republished in Austria in January, and then at the beginning of February in a number of European newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Diplomatic protests by governments of Islamic countries started in October 2005, escalating to the closure of embassies.

Boycotts of Danish products and protests across the Islamic world built up in late January and early February. In the Palestinian territories, armed groups have made direct threats against citizens of the countries in which the cartoons were published. There have also been death threats against the artists.

On 2 February, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen appeared on Arabic TV to apologise for offence caused by the cartoons, but he also defended freedom of expression.

There have since been angry and sometimes violent protests across the Islamic world, and in Britain and France.

What do Muslims say about the cartoons?

Many Muslims say that the cartoons - one of which shows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban - are extremely and deliberately offensive, expressing a growing European hostility towards and fear of Muslims. The portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims in general as terrorists is seen as particularly offensive.

Some Muslims see the cartoons as an attack on their faith and culture designed to sow hatred.

Islamic tradition explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major figures of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

Has Muslim reaction to the cartoons been uniform?

Not at all - some Muslims have accused protesters of overreacting.

A weekly newspaper in Jordan reprinted some of the cartoons and urged Muslims to "be reasonable".

Websites produced by and for Muslims have shown the cartoons or linked to them. One liberal website said Muslims were making a mountain out of a molehill.

Some Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the re-publication of the images so that individual Muslims can make their own minds up and welcomed the debate on the issues that that cartoons have raised.

It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonising" Jews and Israelis are common.

Why did the Danish newspaper publish the cartoons?

The Danish newspaper that originally published the cartoons commissioned them after the author of a book about Islam said he was unable to find a single person willing to provide images of the Prophet.

The newspaper's culture editor, Flemming Rose, says he did not ask the illustrators to draw satirical caricatures of Muhammad. He asked them to draw the Prophet as they saw him.

Rose has insisted that there is a long Danish tradition of biting satire with no taboos, and that Muhammad and Islam are being treated no differently to other religions.

He also argues that the images have raised the profile in Denmark of a debate on integration of religious minorities.

The newspaper editors who have republished the cartoons say they are defending the right to free speech and acting in solidarity with the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.

What are the issues raised by the cartoons?

In many European countries there is a strong sense of secular values being under fire from conservative Islamic traditions among immigrant communities. Many commentators see the cartoons as a response to this.

There are also issues of integration - how much should the host society compromise to accommodate immigrant populations, and how much should immigrants integrate into the society they are making home.

Some commentators have defended the cartoons, saying they address fault lines in changing European societies that need to be discussed more openly.

Has anything like this happened before?

Culture clashes of this kind are not new.

In 1989 Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini called on Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy in his book The Satanic Verses.

This may be closest comparison to the current situation. It raised many of the same issues - sensitivity of host cultures to religious sensibilities, integration of immigrants, religious intolerance and freedom of speech.

It took many years for the controversy over Mr Rushdie's novel to fade away, and for the author to emerge from hiding.