Muslims to march in London

hmm, seems to me that the 'problem' here is a lack of empathy/understanding. I totally agree with the principle of free speech, but, I am also just as keen on the principle of respect. Having the right to free speech shouldn't mean it is is ok to upset & insult people.

- personally I was previously unaware of the feelings of Muslims about images of the Prophet, but, now I do know I would not dream of publishing such an image.

It seems simple enough, we agree not to upset our Islamic neighbours with such material in the future, we all shake hands & move on.

For anyone who feels that is 'giving in', I think it would be as much a victory for mutual respect, as it might be a defeat for free speech.

Originally Posted by homealone

hmm, seems to me that the 'problem' here is a lack of empathy/understanding.

That cuts both ways.

Originally Posted by homealone

Having the right to free speech shouldn't mean it is is ok to upset & insult people.

Actually, yes it does.

That doesn't mean that we have to go out of our way to insult, but that equally applies to the 'injured' party not going out of their way to be 'aggrieved'.

The whole point about FoS is that we can choose whether we wish to be sensitive to someone's sensibilities, or whether we choose to ignore this to make a statement. If we have to consider whether that risks a death-threat, then the 'freedom' is lost.

Originally Posted by homealone

It seems simple enough, we agree not to upset our Islamic neighbours with such material in the future, we all shake hands & move on.

Fine, if they'll agree to ensure that the extremist element in the UK is routed. But then they'd have to break their own 'code' of not handing a Muslim over to non-Muslims.

While Islam places itself before community/country/family we can never be sure whether our Islamic neighbours are neighbours or whether they'll be Muslims first and foremost.

Originally Posted by homealone

For anyone who feels that is 'giving in', I think it would be as much a victory for mutual respect, as it might be a defeat for free speech.

There can be no 'victory for mutual respect' until there is mutual respect. It can't be a unilateral decision.

[punky]

I appreciate what you say Gaz, but there is a big difference between criticising someone (saying I am too greedy, for example), and being insulting (calling me an a******e)

Originally Posted by punky

I appreciate what you say Gaz, but there is a big difference between criticising someone (saying I am too greedy, for example), and being insulting (calling me an a******e)

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??

[punky]

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.

Originally Posted by http://www.natashatynes.org/newswire/2006/01/danish_cartoons.html

He commissioned the cartoons after hearing that Danish artists were too scared to illustrate a children's book about the prophet.

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.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

That doesn't mean that we have to go out of our way to insult, but that equally applies to the 'injured' party not going out of their way to be 'aggrieved'.

I agree with that, I think that we are lucky the Islamic community here were more inclined to react as they did on Saturday, rather than the scenes earlier in the week, but in general I think the confontational placard waving, 'death to' chanting & flag burning is seen too often as a response to any implied slur on Islam - to the point it is difficult for an observer to have a perspective on the severity of the problem.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------

Originally Posted by punky

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.

Yes I agree they weren't originally created as an insult, but I'm not sure that the feeling of Muslims were known when they were re-published, as, if they were, then the act of re-publishing could be taken as insulting & confrontational? Thats what I am trying to say, that a joke can be funny in the abstract, even at the expense of a minority, but if you know it will actually cause offence & be taken as an insult, then you should be more wary of the implications??

Originally Posted by punky

I appreciate what you say Gaz, but there is a big difference between criticising someone (saying I am too greedy, for example), and being insulting (calling me an a******e)

Not really - they'd both be an opinion.

Among friends, the banter can at times be extremely derogatory and insulting - apparently, but the people concerned do not seem to betroubled by it.
Should we henceforth prosecute anyone who calls someone an a******e because it is insulting?

According to you, criticism would be ok, but insult wouldn't.

So why is the 'criticism' in the cartoons (i.e. that Muslims permit/encourage terrorism in the name of Islam) now suddenly an insult? Oh, because the people being criticised have decided to be insulted - I guess it avoids having to face the criticism...

Of the cartoons, only 3 were IMHO in any good in that they did satirise, rather than simply insult:

1) Image of 2 women in black veils - letterbox slot for eyes, showing their eyes. Between then, an armed, bearded man who looks like trouble - his eyes cover with the typical black letterbox slot across the eyes - what they use in magazines to hide the identity.
So this one actually doesn't identify anyone - the artist obviously did show sensitivity to Islamic sensibilities - or so he thought...

2) Cloud with gate, imam type looking bloke shouting at a line of suicide bombers to inform them that the everafter was 'running out of virgins'. That one is hilarious. Does it identify Muhammed or is it just a comment on the obnoxious kind of lies perpetrated in the name of Islam that cause people to carry out these heinous acts?
IF the Koran or anything DOES promise anything like this, can Muslims not see how this demonises Islam? "Yeah, strap a bomb to yourself, and you'll also get to rape young girls in heaven."

3) The image of the bearded man with bomb-shaped turban. Again, another visual metaphor for the image that Islam has acquired. The religion that believes in violent expression. Where people are driven, by other people to perform acts of murder in the name of Islam. Where prophet and bombs have become synonymous.
IF the turban had not looked like a bomb, would it have been any more or less insulting?

As someone has pointed out, the rules forbidding images of Muhammed/Allah apply to Muslims ONLY. Just like the customs and rules of other religions ONLY apply to them. So a Jew won't eat pork? More for us christians then.

That's the way a free society works. Live and let live.

---------- Post added at 14:20 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Originally Posted by homealone

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??

That's exactly like the cartoon issue.

A joke is a joke, nothing more. Even ones in bad taste can be funny. If someone then chooses to express offence (i.e. reminding everyone how they've got family suffering...) it forces the other person to retract. NOT because they no longer find the joke funny, but because they have to choose whether to continue to exercise their FoS or to conform to thje social norm.

BTW, in your example the offended party merely points out where the offence was caused. I don't think they held a protest rally the following day...

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:20 ----------

Originally Posted by homealone

Yes I agree they weren't originally created as an insult, but I'm not sure that the feeling of Muslims were known when they were re-published, as, if they were, then the act of re-publishing could be taken as insulting & confrontational?

The re-publishing WAS confrontational. It was designed to confront the notion that maybe FoS could be 'limited' in some cases - e.g. Islam.

And instead of realising that the reaction over the initial publication was inappropriate - the reactions following re-publication were, if anything, more extreme.

Yes, the editors knew exactly what they were doing, but did the protesting Muslims? Did they realise that by asking for restrictions on publication that they were attacking FoS? Did they realise that by their violent expressions only validated the cartoons and hence their publication?

Originally Posted by Scared WebWarrior

<snip>As someone has pointed out, the rules forbidding images of Muhammed/Allah apply to Muslims ONLY. Just like the customs and rules of other religions ONLY apply to them. So a Jew won't eat pork? More for us christians then.

That's the way a free society works. Live and let live.

you make some very good points, however I must ask if, as an example, you had invited a friend for a meal, who happens to be Jewish, would you serve everyone else at the meal with pork, and give your Jewish guest something else, or would you be sensitive to his beliefs and serve everyone with a suitable compromise?

- in the same vein, while agreeing we are not bound by Muslim beliefs, that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect them, at least to the point where we avoid being insulting.

As I said before, I wasn't previously aware of the depth of feeling such imagery invokes, something we find difficult to understand in our culture, as we have been so used to the idea of cartoons as satirical social & political comment (Punch, Private Eye etc).

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

SWW, re your numbered points above. The fact is that they (the pictures) are portraying those characters to be Muhammed and this has been explicitly stated, that the cartoons are of the prophet Muhammed(unless ive totally missed something). Most muslims would have just laughed the cartoons off if, like its been said they are just satiricising (sp) Islam. I for one wouldnt have been offended if they were in this coptext (i.e a generalisation as opposed to specific to the Prophet).
You make an interesting point about the bomb shaped turban. Without it we would have had no where near the level of protest we've had today, even if the person in the cartoon was wearing a I am the prophet Muhammed teeshirt on. Its the whole, The Prophet is a terrorist/demonising the prophet thing was has caused the uproar.

Originally Posted by punky

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?

Originally Posted by homealone

you make some very good points, however I must ask if, as an example, you had invited a friend for a meal, who happens to be Jewish, would you serve everyone else at the meal with pork, and give your Jewish guest something else, or would you be sensitive to his beliefs and serve everyone with a suitable compromise?

Either - does it matter? I wouldn't force a Jewish person to eat pork, nor would I deny it anyone else.

As you point out, the problem can be solved in more than one way. Each solution changes the situation and affects the other people around the table differently. Why should I prefer to pick the solution that effectively forces everyone else to conform to this individual's beliefs?
I could equally offer a buffet with a dozen choices so that no-one has to feel that they are being limited in their choice or that any one person has to feel as if they've forced some kind of compromise.

Each to their own, live and let live.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

You make an interesting point about the bomb shaped turban. Without it we would have had no where near the level of protest we've had today, even if the person in the cartoon was wearing a I am the prophet Muhammed teeshirt on. Its the whole, The Prophet is a terrorist/demonising the prophet thing was has caused the uproar.

The point is, the cartoons are NOT saying 'the Prohet is a terrorist' - the message is more 'terrorism is part of Islam' - the image of the prophet being the metaphor for Islam.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

The point is, the cartoons are NOT saying 'the Prohet is a terrorist' - the message is more 'terrorism is part of Islam' - the image of the prophet being the metaphor for Islam.

On the contrary, Mohammed personally led acts of aggression against his neighbours in the early years of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam#Muhammad

Like it or not, the founder of this faith advocated force as a means of achieving the aims of the religion.

[basa]

Originally Posted by Chris T

On the contrary, Mohammed personally led acts of aggression against his neighbours in the early years of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam#Muhammad

Like it or not, the founder of this faith advocated force as a means of achieving the aims of the religion.

Plus the extortion of protection monies !!!

On the bus ride home tonight I saw a wall spraypainted with 'KILL DANES'

[Mr Angry]

".....proof that Islam is the only religion you can't even comment on, let alone criticise."

Somehow I think the catholic church, Dan Brown and Corgi's lawyers might disagree with that.