View Single Post
Old 13-02-2006, 15:44   #175
Maggy
The Invisible Woman
Cable Forum Mod
 
Maggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: between Portsmouth and Southampton.
Age: 73
Services: VM XL TV,50 MB VM BB,VM landline, Tivo
Posts: 40,365
Maggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden aura
Maggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden auraMaggy has a golden aura
Re: Muslims to march in London

Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
Originally Posted by homealone
that is my point, though, previously I was unaware that a caricature of the prophet was so deeply insulting to the Islamic faith and probably wouldn't think twice about publishing it - but now I do know, then it would be wrong.

Imagine being with a bunch of people & someone makes a joke about a disability, then one of the group says 'my brother/sister etc has that' - would you continue to mock that minority, or should you say 'sorry mate, didn't realise, I didn't mean to offend' and not mention it again??
Charicaturing Mohammed is wrong - if you are Muslim. If you aren't Muslim then you aren't bound by the same rules and laws.

With regards to your example, I wouldn't say that counts as criticism, its a joke at their expense. That vaguely does come under insults. The reason the cartoons were created wasn't a joke at Muslim's expense, it was proof that Islam is the only religion you can't even comment on, let alone criticise.

There are two valid criticisms. The first being terrorism's association with Islam (bomb in the turban), and second for overly dictatorial approach to how Islam is viewed by non-Muslims.

All criticism is insulting to a degree because when you criticise you are commenting on the least desireable parts of people (i.e. greed, or violence). That means we can't criticise anyone anymore?

Jokes at people's expense aside, freedom to criticise is a non-negoiatible part of freedom of speech.
Actually where the insult begins was not when the cartoons were first published which could have been dismissed as merely lack of knowledge but the continued and sustained republishing and posting of the cartoons.

If you use homey's analagy of the person making fun of people with a disabilty and one of his friends points out that a family member has that disability, then for that person to continue to make fun out of people with the condition is gone beyond ignorance and mickey taking and has become something entirely nasty with the chance of some real trouble starting.

So to continue to post the cartoons once we have the understanding of the matter can be viewed as an attempt to really push at the bounderies of common sense into the area of sheer bluddy mindeness.It's very much a case of "in yer face matey" then is it not?If you push someone's buttons long enough what can you expect?
__________________
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. Shakespeare..
Maggy is offline