Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

The imam at my local mosque didnt inicite anyone to march to Beeb headquarters waving placards.

Having seen the pictures my self there is one that is pretty offending, and that's the one with Muhammed wearing a turban with the bomb. I didnt quite get the rest as some of the accompanying texts weren't in English. Im a 'moderate' muslim, wouldnt class myself as a 'fanatic' and I have demonstrated my displeasure through different channels.
In today's times where terrorism and Islam are being so closely linked together I do find it irresponsible for someone to publish such an image knowing that it will re-inforce people's beliefs that all muslims are terrorists and that is what the Prophet promoted. Additionally knowing the anger it has already promoted what has the BBC or anyone else got to gain by publishing them again, other than adding more feul to the fire.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

With all respect, (I largely agree with what you posted), the idiots (sorry, I have no other word for it) demonstrating with placards as were mentioned are the ones that are behaving irresponsibly and add fuel to the fire.

In the light of these people, I find myself leaning towards being in favour of publishing the cartoons just to show we take freedom of speech seriously

Edit: I believe this is what is known as a lose-lose situation :(

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

I thought the 'we're running out of virgins' one was quite amusing. I didn't infer that the chap at the gates was anyone in particular, so I don't see the problem with that one.

I still haven't seen the full set as published - the 'bomb head' one wouldn't be a problem unless someone specifically stated that the image was supposed to represent Mohammed. Which wouldn't be necessary to make the point, really.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:49 ----------

I think it is quite clear that the broader publication of the cartoons around Europe was indeed in response to the fire with which they were being attacked.
Yup. ASAP.
I do believe you're right there.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

I'm glad to hear it - and just to be absolutely clear, I did say I wondered what the Imams were telling them (i.e. the banner-waving nutters), meaning to imply that some, not all, were possibly involved in inciting this 'demonstration'.

The BBC has nothing to gain. What the BBC is doing is what any responsible news organisation in a free democracy has a duty to do. A story has blown up and has gained worldwide significance. They simply must report on that story in a way that is meaningful. It seems utterly incomprehensible that a report about an image should not include the image, unless that image was illegal - which it is not. The BBC has gone to some lengths to be sensitive, choosing only to show the cartoon briefly, as printed in the relevant newspapers, and not flashing it directly up on screen, so as to ensure the report is set in proper context.

I say again, the people who have made it an international splash are the idiots who are rampaging around the world's capitals waving banners and calling for bombs to rain on Europe. They have turned this into a story and the reporting of that story is an inevitable consequence. What frustrates me most of all is that these people are blinded by their cause, they will probably never understand their role in this.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

I don't think anyone denies the cartoons were offensive, and your point about re-publishing them, is moot. Perhaps we (as in non Muslims) don't understand the depth of feeling the images invoke, but neither can we condone a reaction calling for deaths, because of them.

The banner saying 'Europe Your 9/11 will come' was a particular example - can you understand how we don't find that to be an appropriate response to something, while admittedly offensive, was intended to be humour? Thousands of deaths because of a few pictures, sorry, that is not right and human life should not be held so cheap.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

I think the whole reason behind the offence being caused is taht they are all supposed to be of Muhammed. In reference to the 'running out of virgins' one, if this wasn't supposed to be a caricture of the prophet I wouldn't be as offended as I am now, if offended at all. Similarly with the 'bomb head' one if that was a cartoon of any other muslim it wouldnt offend me, nor suprise me that thats what people think of muslims. But the fact iits supposed to be the prophet is where the offence lies.

On a note of Freedom of speech, is it neccessary to offend so many people just to demonstrate that we have freedom of speech. I firmly believe in freedom of speech, but I wouldnt call anyone's mum a slag just because Im entitled to.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

I agree with you, and I think any paper that publishes the cartoons just because it can is abusing its power. I don't think that is what the BBC has done though.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

That banner text was in every way as offensive to OUR value system as the cartoons have been to theirs.
Please, do not apologise for speaking the truth.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

I donot agree with the reactions being witnessed at all. Additionally with the Salman Rushdie episode burning the books and the British flag was not an action which was agreeable to the majority of the muslims in the UK. Unfortunately there will always be a minority of idiots that take matters to an extreme beyond comprehension (eg london bombings), but thats not representative of teh whole muslim faith. The sad think is that people actually belive or want to believe that it is, and people who know better promote the same view about Islam.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

I have to say that I have seen (thankfully) very little of that attitude on this thread (in fact, I myself have made a point of stating that is not my view). I do believe however, that these demonstrators are guilty of encouraging that view.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

However, I think that the offence taken is far in excess of anything reasonable.

If I stood up in church and shouted some blasphemy, I would get some tut-tutting, disapproving looks, and maybe asked to leave. But no screaming, banner waving or bloodlust.

I don't care how holy Muslims think they are (and I do believe plenty of them are of the 'holier than thou' variety), the level and type of protest is utterly and completely and insanely disproportionate.

I even think that letters and petitions to the Danish embassy are excessive, but at least it's peaceful protest.
You're not entitled to. That could be considered slander.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

The way I see it is this, at the end of the day it I dont care if the pictures are published or not. While a lot of muslims do, so why bother insulting all of them when it really is not that important

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

So it would be ok to draw a picture of a woman wearing a miniskirt, giving someone a bj on a street corner, wrote "oh thats <so and so's mum> " under it and put it in the paper?

freedom of speech or insulting? You decide. I know that if someone did that with my mum's name on it I'd knock em out.

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

Everytime something comes up with Muslims on the news why do some people keep on saying itââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s just a minority. Check the news and the papers look whatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s happening around the world. It certainly doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t look like a minority and those in London today should be arrested but we all know the police wont touch them because there Muslim

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1376522.jpg

Re: Should they be published in the UK?
 

Look, I'm not a FoS lawyer - it may be legal. Just look at what the cartoonists do.
Probably both. I accept that FoS sometimes allows things to be published that maybe would be better off not published. I also accept that in order to maintain FoS, that is the cost we have to pay.

The alternative is the 1984 scenario - no thanks.
And then YOU will be the one that ends up in court. There are other ways...