Should they be published in the UK?

03-02-2006, 08:04

After they have been printed in a number of European countries, apparently in support of freedom of speech, should the UK follow suit and make a stand?

From the BBC:

Quote:

"But it [Muslim Association of Britain] said any reproduction of the images by the British media would "only infuriate the British members of the Muslim community and Muslims around the world".

In other words, British Muslims are no more tolerant than those elsewhere?

I believe that if we were to show more sensitivity towards one religion than another, then that would be as wrong as showing more insensitivity towards one or another.

BTW - reading further in that article:

Quote:

A spokesman [Muslim Council of Britain] said: "It depends on whether they're broadcast to illustrate the story about the row developing or, in the same way as the European newspapers have published, to gloat about freedom.

What the hell does that mean? No-one is 'gloating' about freedom of speech, they are asserting the right to freedom of speech. Something they can only dream of in most of the countries where the complaints are coming from.

Paul K · 03-02-2006, 08:14

So should publishing blatantly inflammatory (and in some views insulting) caricatures be allowed under the guise of freedom of speech?
Publishing the cartoons once could be seen as an error of judgement but re-publishing them was just stupid in my view. No religion should be treated an better or worse than others but then again people shouldn't set out to purposefully insult a religious group who have already proven themselves fully prepared to show their displeasure in a very public way.
Tolerance works both ways in religion but for a long time now religion has been one of the major reasons for conflict and war

You would think that after several thousand years the people of this planet would have learned to live together without looking for a reason to argue or fight.

danielf · 03-02-2006, 08:19

I'm torn on this. On the one hand, I'm with Paul. I don't see any point in re-publishing stuff that is inflammatory. However, seeing the reaction, I do feel some people need to grow up and get a grip. So, I don't know really...

03-02-2006, 08:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

So should publishing blatantly inflammatory (and in some views insulting) caricatures be allowed under the guise of freedom of speech?

Insulting caricatures are a very long established art form, and are often just a pictorial expression of opinion. They could only be 'inflammatory' if they were created specifically with a view to cause offence. I don't believe that is the case here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

but then again people shouldn't set out to purposefully insult a religious group who have already proven themselves fully prepared to show their displeasure in a very public way.

What? So we now bow to the threat of violence? Next step - give in to terrorists. No way.

Ramrod · 03-02-2006, 08:40

I say that we should publish them so that our population can see what the fuss is about.
I am amazed at the strength of the muslim reaction to these. They are treating all the citizens of the countries that the papers are published in as though they all had hand in the publishing of the cartoons.

Mails Crushed · 03-02-2006, 08:42

They should be published. Anyway, they are all over the internet

Why the ban on portraying Muhammad should also extend to those who don't believe in Islam?

Is a society imaginable in which all bans of all religions are added up?

The Austrians published cartoons of the Queen having sex with Bush , I did not see any boycott of Wiener Schnitzels in this country...

**Chris** · 03-02-2006, 08:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

So should publishing blatantly inflammatory (and in some views insulting) caricatures be allowed under the guise of freedom of speech?
Publishing the cartoons once could be seen as an error of judgement but re-publishing them was just stupid in my view. No religion should be treated an better or worse than others but then again people shouldn't set out to purposefully insult a religious group who have already proven themselves fully prepared to show their displeasure in a very public way.
Tolerance works both ways in religion but for a long time now religion has been one of the major reasons for conflict and war

You would think that after several thousand years the people of this planet would have learned to live together without looking for a reason to argue or fight.

So you wouldn't be pleased if Cleese, Palin and the rest were to stand up and announce they were starting work on 'Monty Python's Life of Halim' then?

Paul K · 03-02-2006, 08:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

So should publishing blatantly inflammatory (and in some views insulting) caricatures be allowed under the guise of freedom of speech?

Insulting caricatures are a very long established art form, and are often just a pictorial expression of opinion. They could only be 'inflammatory' if they were created specifically with a view to cause offence. I don't believe that is the case here.

Maybe not but it seems that part of the Muslim faith believe that it is the case, which is the big problem here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

but then again people shouldn't set out to purposefully insult a religious group who have already proven themselves fully prepared to show their displeasure in a very public way.

What? So we now bow to the threat of violence? Next step - giev in to terrorists. No way.

Did I say we should bow down to violence? I believe I said that people shouldn't set out to purposefully insult a religious group.
Personally I believe as Ramrod in that a certain amount of over reaction has occured in certain countries but I do not believe that after complaints were received they paper was right to re-publish the entire set in a double page spread.
In my opinion it is time that a lot of religious groups around the world grew up and faced the reality of global communication and global broadcasting. You are not always going to agree with everything that is said, you are not always going to be happy with everything that happens and you are not always going to accept other views and opinions that are voiced/ published.
Like I said in my previous post, "tolerance works both ways", trouble is it will not work unless all groups start tolerating each other instead of just certain groups demanding tolerance from everyone else.

Derek · 03-02-2006, 08:49

There are plenty of people who find page 3 offensive. Should that be banned?

Same with portrayals of homosexuality on TV, images of drug taking etc.

I find it ludicrious the BBC can show British soldiers being blown up in Iraq and then interview the guy who created the site while he justifies it but when they show the images for the briefest second on the news they get a mob protesting outside television centre.

Paul K · 03-02-2006, 08:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

So you wouldn't be pleased if Cleese, Palin and the rest were to stand up and announce they were starting work on Monty Python's Life of Mohammed then?

Never seen the original "Life of" film I am ashamed to say

So I can't actually comment.

03-02-2006, 08:51

I am also disappointed that the reaction seems to be disproportionate to the 'insult'. Someone pointed out the irony of threatening to bomb countries in retaliation for the caricature of a Muslim with a bomb on his head.

I think the view of massed protestors burning flags & calling for blood is losing something when it happens for something so trivial.

- obviously 'trivial' is my perception, and not intended to belittle the teachings of Islam regarding imagery, but I do think a sense of proportion needs to prevail.

Ramrod · 03-02-2006, 08:54

Quote:

The cartoons row grew yesterday with sharp questions asked about a group of Danish imams who toured the Middle East denouncing their own country for allowing images of the Prophet Mohammed to be published. The group created a 43-page dossier on what they said was rampant racism and Islamophobia in Denmark and took it to politicians and leading clerics in Egypt and Lebanon in a series of trips late last year.

The Danish media have tried to question the Muslim delegates on how they came to include three extra, obscene cartoons in the dossier, in addition to the 12 images that started the row when they were published by a Danish newspaper in September.
The extra cartoons, whose origins remain obscure, show Mohammed with a pig's snout, a dog raping a praying Muslim and Mohammed as a "paedophile demon".

It would appear that someone has been embelishing the facts to stir up anti western hatred

Interesting reading

**Chris** · 03-02-2006, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul

Never seen the original "Life of" film I am ashamed to say

So I can't actually comment.

Darn, you got in before my edit ... I changed it to 'Life of Halim' (random Arabic name) because of course the original film is not 'Life of Jesus'. It's about a poor Jewish bloke who is taken to be the messiah and can't convince the people otherwise no matter how hard he tries. Jesus actually gets a cameo in the film, he's in the background of one scene conducting the Sermon on the Mount. They don't satirise him directly though.

What they do do, however, is finish the film with Brian getting crucified and singing 'Always look on the bright side of life'. Although it's not Jesus' crucifixion, a great many Christians have been offended by this, believing it to be disrespectful of the very core of their faith. That didn't prevent any cinema screening it though (or any of the TV stations that have screened it since).

Now, we have a situation where a cartoon is satirising Mohammed, the very core of the faith of Islam, and it is argued that it is not to be published because it's offensive. Forgive me if I see double standards here.

By the way, anyone who hasn't seen the cartoon, you can get a good look by doing a Google image search for 'Danish mohammed cartoon'. It's currently the second result, with the heading 'Uriasposten'. I am not linking to it directly in case some lunatic decides to declare a fatwa on CF.

Paul K · 03-02-2006, 09:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

I am not linking to it directly in case some lunatic decides to declare a fatwa on CF.

Fatwa? *imagines crowds of muslim extremists burning ethernet and modem cables in street*

Ramrod · 03-02-2006, 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

I am not linking to it directly in case some lunatic decides to declare a fatwa on CF.