Muslims to march in London

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Macca371

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

I thought that was a county in Ireland

[punky]

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.

We aren't talking friends here, so you are taking my point entirely out of context.

Calling someone an a******e isn't a valid criticism. If they are rude, which makes them an a******e then calling them rude would be a criticism.

-----------------

Originally Posted by homealone

if they were, then the act of re-publishing could be taken as insulting & confrontational?

...

but if you know it will actually cause offence & be taken as an insult, then you should be more wary of the implications??

Of course the cartoons were confrontational, as they were supposed to be. They were supposed to confront the aspects of Islam they wanted to criticise.

People shouldn't be too scared to confront parts of Islam they want to criticise, because of the reaction. That's precisely why they wanted to criticise their holier-than-thou position.

-----------------

Originally Posted by MrAngry

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

And I think Rushie might disagree with that too. Theo Van Gogh might too if you could get hold of a medium. Brown doesn't have a death sentence on his head does he?

-----------------

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.

...

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?

With respect Incog, you're missing the point i'm trying to make. The reason why they were reprinted wasn't to insult Muslims, they were to prove the criticism carried weight. If Muslims couldn't give a monkey's to the cartoons, then that would disprove the criticism. The fact they reacted precisely how th newspaper thought they would, shows that the newspaper had a point.

It comes down to a simple point: Do you think they Muslims were right to be insulted. You and Homer agree there were right. That's fine. I don't agree. I think its very wrong of them. I'm Christian, and you could say anything you like about Christianity, I really couldn't give a monkey's. Everyone I have asked about this (7-10 people who are commited Christian) have agreed. IMO its a problem with Islam, not a problem with freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by punky

It comes down to a simple point: Do you think they Muslims were right to be insulted. You and Homer agree there were right. That's fine. I don't agree. I think its very wrong of them. I'm Christian, and you could say anything you like about Christianity, I really couldn't give a monkey's. Everyone I have asked about this (7-10 people who are commited Christian) have agreed. IMO its a problem with Islam, not a problem with freedom of speech.

,

I do see your point, but I must admit I am basing my opinion on the reaction in the UK, rather than the rest of the world. So far, I have seen one small scale, but very nasty, demonstration & a larger peaceful protest which sought to distance British Muslims from the calls to violence, while at the same time expressing the hurt they felt at the perceived insult to their faith.

I agree that the more extreme reactions are OTT, I said in an earlier post that I deplore the stereotype image of a hate spewing, flag burning fanatic. I can see what you mean about the motive for re-publishing the cartoons, but to be honest if someone says 'if you poke that bear with a stick he will attack you' - would you still go ahead & poke it with a stick, just to prove the point?

So, I'm glad the British Muslims showed they are capable of rising above the stereotype, and I hope we can move on & re-establish our mutual respect.

As for the rest of the world, I really don't know, I just hope there are some people there as sensible as the dignified spokespersons at Saturdays march, who can try to calm people down.

To do it once maybe punky.Twice perhaps.Three times plus seems like overkill to me and was a definite attempt to get precisely the reaction they got..

I got your point just fine I just don't think it is a valid one.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

To do it once maybe punky.Twice perhaps.Three times plus seems like overkill to me and was a definite attempt to get precisely the reaction they got..

I got your point just fine I just don't think it is a valid one.

If you say so however you still think valid criticism is an unacceptable insult/incitement to religious hatred, I give up.

I would hope that everyone here would know me well enough to know what I don't insult them or incite hatred, but its Europeans' legally protected right to criticise whoever they like. I don't think Islam should be exempt from criticism because the Koran or Mohammed said so, or as you say, exempt the third time either.

[Mr Angry]

"Everyone I have asked about this (7-10 people who are commited Christian) have agreed. IMO its a problem with Islam, not a problem with freedom of speech."

Hardly the best "sample" of society to get a reasoned or well formulated interpretation of how practitioners of another religion might feel insulted by a lampooning of their God. Not a dig at christians, simply an observation that a more culturally diverse sample base would most probably have resulted in a different outcome.

In my opinion these cartoons are in no way a "criticism" of Islam. Anyone who can interpret them as a criticism is simply fooling themselves and excusing irresponsible actions on the part of (sales led) media outlets. There is nothing critique based about them, nor has anyone involved in their creation cited "criticism" as the basis for their creation. They were designed to cause offence / poke fun and that is exactly what they did - in spades.

Those who are better placed than I to understand the current mindset of muslims (both moderate and fundamental) have cited these cartoons as the last straw as far as the muslim religion and its current stigmatism is concerned. I don't subscribe to this theory of "Oh, lets print a few cartoons to prove they're all nutters" that some people are peddling. In light of some of the atrocities that have been carried out to date "in the name of Islam" I think there is more than substantial proof of a small hardcore of "nutters" - I really don't require any more proof - thanks all the same mr international newspaper publisher man.

As someone who has lived through 30 years of a religious based war of attrition of bombings, shootings and murderers visiting in the night I can tell you this - NO religious based war is right and any right thinking human being should do all in their power to prevent them rather than fanning the flames of what ignites them - be that in the guise of freedom of speech or whatever. Religious wars and intolerance are based and founded on the teachings of individuals or deitys whose existence or divine proximity to a God no one can definitively prove. Those of us who subscribe to any religion do so on the basis of faith - I respect everyones right to express their faith, it is a fundamental human right. What never ceases to amaze me though is our lack of faith in our fellow man.

Perhaps if we spent a bit more time expending faith and goodwill to "tangible entities" like our neighbours, the "black guy down the road", "the white kid on the corner" or the "indian single parent round the corner" then we would be reciprocated in a fashion that is more becoming of a civilized society.

Two wrongs don't make a right, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. Cliches, I know, but sadly very true.

I think everyone should step back from this and reflect for a minute. Is it worth the loss of a single life just to print a cartoon? Does anyone want to see multiple 7/7's happening on a regular basis? Do honest hard working muslims want to spend an eternity thinking "Do they secretly think I'm a terrorist"? I think the answer is no.

We lost over 3000 lives here in Northern Ireland, and many lives were lost elsewhere, through one or other of the two main religious groupings over here citing "freedom of speech", "human rights", the right to "self determination" or "go back to where you came from" rhetoric. This s**t costs LIVES - real human being lives, families.

We can debate all we want on an internet discussion board but our actions beyond this safe environment will shape the future of intercultural relationships throughout the UK and beyond.

I have no vested interest in the political leanings of anyone on this board but I think our troubles here in Northern Ireland were best summed up with the statement that we needed to "disarm the mindset". This was a profound statement and, to this day, rings true and effective in the continued relative peace we have over here (I have managed to raise three wonderful young sons who have never heard a bomb go off or a weapon discharged - and for that I am eternally grateful).

This may seem consequentially small to many readers of this post but it means the world to me.

You do not want to suffer what we suffered. It benefits no one and, as has been the case here in Northern Ireland, after the fact everyone will sit back, draw a deep breath and try to gauge the worth of a war. No one I know thinks that anything good came out of those 30 years. We are now only nearly at a stage of mutual religious respect & tolerance that most countries achieved in the middle ages.

To see the potential for the UK / Europe to show that they have learnt nothing from our intolerance for each other is both disappointing and worrying to say the least.

Peace out.

Originally Posted by punky

If you say so however you still think valid criticism is an unacceptable insult/incitement to religious hatred, I give up.

I would hope that everyone here would know me well enough to know what I don't insult them or incite hatred, but its Europeans' legally protected right to criticise whoever they like. I don't think Islam should be exempt from criticism because the Koran or Mohammed said so, or as you say, exempt the third time either.

Valid criticism is perfectly acceptable but when your valid criticism actually offends against someone's deep seated beliefs then you just have to accept that they are going to be rather upset.Yes let's discuss the rights and wrongs in the behaviour of varying faiths and religions but do we have to do it in the very way that continues to offend?Surely we can discuss about why some muslims turn to terrorism without repeatedly doing the one thing over and over and over and over just because you can as part of your right to freely express yourself.

Freedom of expression as you see it, is the BNP's right to continually incite racism in that case.There has to be a point at which you stop offending deliberately or you will incite hatred.It is only common sense.

I actually do believe in freedom of expression but not in the right to say and do offensive stuff just to get a rise out of a particular group.Frankly I think incitement against religious groups is as offensive as incitement against racial groupings.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Hardly the best "sample" of society to get a reasoned or well formulated interpretation of how practitioners of another religion might feel insulted by a lampooning of their God. Not a dig at christians, simply an observation that a more culturally diverse sample base would most probably have resulted in a different outcome.

I never said it was a MORI poll. I just said what I know. You're welcome to put as much, or as little store by it as you wish, but don't mock me because of it.

Other than that, good post.

nyone who can interpret them as a criticism is simply fooling themselves and excusing irresponsible actions on the part of (sales led) media outlets. There is nothing critique based about them, nor has anyone involved in their creation cited "criticism" as the basis for their creation. They were designed to cause offence / poke fun and that is exactly what they did - in spades.

Stepping away from the cartoons. Put them into words. Mohammed represents Islam, the bomb represents terrorism, and the combination of Mohammed and the bomb represents the link between the two. The picture merely says that Islam has a problem with terrorism. Hardly a startling revelation when we have videos of people being beheaded, 9/11 and bombings. Muslims are saying its incitement to religious hatred. Why? Many people, including Islam, have said that Islam suffers from a minority who commite terrorism under the banner of Islam. You put it into a picture, and suddenly there are riots all over the world.

They wern't designed to cause offence, but they were commissioned after an Islamic children's author who wrote works based on Mohammed couldn't get illustrations of Mohammed for fear of violent reprisals. The cartoons were commissioned to remind Muslims that freedom of speech protects valid criticism or anything, be it Islam, Christian, or even Bush/Blair, and that people should never be forced, under threat of violence to exercise their legally protected right.

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 00:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Valid criticism is perfectly acceptable but when your valid criticism actually offends against someone's deep seated beliefs then you just have to accept that they are going to be rather upset.

We aren't offending deep seated beliefs though. Pictures of Mohammed are prohibited under Islamic law. Muslims are offended because non-Muslims are failing to adhere to Islamic law.

I perfectly accept that criticism could lead to people being upset. You have the right to call me ignorant. I have the right to be upset, or not upset. However, you shouldn't be too afraid to use that right because you think i'll come and stab you.

I'm not trying to criticise Islam, which is how I think I am starting to come across. I have the utmost respect for Islam as well as everyone elses religion, as I wish people would have respect for mine. However, I see a world where people are too afraid to use their human rights because of fear of violent reprisals, and I find that extremely worrying.

Originally Posted by punky

<snip>I'm not trying to criticise Islam, which is how I think I am starting to come across. I have the utmost respect for Islam as well as everyone elses religion, as I wish people would have respect for mine. However, I see a world where people are too afraid to use their human rights because of fear of violent reprisals, and I find that extremely worrying.

you are not coming across as unreasonable, at all, I wanted to thank you earlier for discussing this so reasonably, but thought it sounded patronising, so i didn't.

I think your final comment transcends this particular problem, though, the implication that there are numerous other squabbles that can turn into major rows is, indeed, scarey

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

In my opinion these cartoons are in no way a "criticism" of Islam.

For the umpteenth time!
The offensive images are not those of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban (why oh why would an arab muslim be wearing a turban anyway?) but images of a French pig squealing contentstant (dressed as a pig) with the caption "Here is the true face of Muhammad" another showing a muslim being mounted as he prays, and another image portraying Muhammad as a demonic paedophile (none of these images were published by the Danish newspaper).

Those images I can understand offending people.
The outrage from the middle east becomes more understandable when you take into account the way these images (along with the 12 that were published) are introduced to people, within a dossier which also states that dane's are infidels, there's a ban on the building of mosques and the claim that Islam is not officially recognised, along with other right wing anti-islamic properganda portrayed as the official line.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland...ammad_cartoons


What the Islamic community should be doing right now is thinking long and hard as to why some non-muslims view Mohammad and Islam in such a negative way.

When people think of christians, they tend to think of nice people who'll smile and say they'll pray for you if they hear you're not well
When people think of buddists, they tend to think of peaceful monks dressed in orange
When people think of Sikhs, they think of honour and the help they gave us in WW2
When people think of muslims, well, a lot of the great unwashed think of them as flag burning extremists who want to wipe out the west. Is that what Muslims want people to think of them?

[basa]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

......<snip>...........What the Islamic community should be doing right now is thinking long and hard as to why some non-muslims view Mohammad and Islam in such a negative way.

When people think of christians, they tend to think of nice people who'll smile and say they'll pray for you if they hear you're not well
When people think of buddists, they tend to think of peaceful monks dressed in orange
When people think of Sikhs, they think of honour and the help they gave us in WW2
When people think of muslims, well, a lot of the great unwashed think of them as flag burning extremists who want to wipe out the west. Is that what Muslims want people to think of them?

Gosh that's a difficult one !!!

(Some hints to assist you:

1. 9/11
2. 7/7
3. Videoed beheadings
4. Flag burning
5. Crowds chanting death to infidels (that's us btw)
6. Violent origins
7. Extorting protection money

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by basa

Gosh that's a difficult one !!!

(Some hints to assist you:

1. 9/11
2. 7/7
3. Videoed beheadings
4. Flag burning
5. Crowds chanting death to infidels (that's us btw)
6. Violent origins
7. Extorting protection money

All the above are examples of terrorist activities carried out by muslims in the name of Islam. The one thing that is obvious in all these examples is "If we dont get our way we will use violence against innocent people"

We are constantly being told in this thread that we should not label all muslims the same, that is something that I agree with entirely. On the other hand however we see some muslims labelling all of the west as bad, have we heard them say only some westerners are bad?

These muslim terrorists have targeted the general public with the terrorist actions, and any criticism of them will result in more of the same. The people who want us to apologise and brush it all under the carpet are looking at a solution that will give more power to the terrorists. I appreciate the west may of upset the whole nation of Islam with these cartoons etc, but apologising will be a moral victory for the terrorists.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Escapee

All the above are examples of terrorist activities carried out by muslims in the name of Islam. The one thing that is obvious in all these examples is "If we dont get our way we will use violence against innocent people"

We are constantly being told in this thread that we should not label all muslims the same, that is something that I agree with entirely. On the other hand however we see some muslims labelling all of the west as bad, have we heard them say only some westerners are bad?

These muslim terrorists have targeted the general public with the terrorist actions, and any criticism of them will result in more of the same. The people who want us to apologise and brush it all under the carpet are looking at a solution that will give more power to the terrorists. I appreciate the west may of upset the whole nation of Islam with these cartoons etc, but apologising will be a moral victory for the terrorists.

I had intended / hoped that my previous post on this matter would also have been my last. Unfortunately I see that there are still people resorting to xenophobic lists of atrocities and half truths in order to "prove" their point. Are you sure, proof positive, that the same levels of vitriol couldn't be pointed at you and your nation / religion if someone was minded to do so?

Apologizing will not give "more power to the terroirists". It would, in fact, remove a lot, if not all, of the impetus of their argument and any so called "retaliatory" strikes they might be planning, had you thought of that?

As for "some muslims labelling all of the west as bad" I think it's worth noting that atrocities committed to date appear to have occured only in countries / sovereign states who have actively engaged in a war on Islam in either Afghanistan or Iraq. My earlier point of two wrongs not making a right refers.

I find it bizarre that anyone would put the purported awarding of a "moral victory" ahead of peoples lives, truly bizarre.

[basa]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I had intended / hoped that my previous post on this matter would also have been my last. Unfortunately I see that there are still people resorting to xenophobic lists of atrocities and half truths in order to "prove" their point. Are you sure, proof positive, that the same levels of vitriol couldn't be pointed at you and your nation / religion if someone was minded to do so?

I would be glad if you could point out the 'half truths'.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Apologizing will not give "more power to the terroirists". It would, in fact, remove a lot, if not all, of the impetus of their argument and any so called "retaliatory" strikes they might be planning, had you thought of that?

I really don't see that. Apologising would be an admission of wrong doing. The culture of the west allows for critique or satirising almost any subject on earth. The muslim community here should understand that and tolerate it even if they don't like it. Plus I really feel the Muslim nutters would capitalise on any 'back down' by pushing the limits of what they can do to us even further.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As for "some muslims labelling all of the west as bad" I think it's worth noting that atrocities committed to date appear to have occured only in countries / sovereign states who have actively engaged in a war on Islam in either Afghanistan or Iraq. My earlier point of two wrongs not making a right refers.

I find it bizarre that anyone would put the purported awarding of a "moral victory" ahead of peoples lives, truly bizarre.

Again I don't recall Denmark involved in hostilities against Afghanistan or Iraq. The only lives at risk are put at risk by the activities of the nutter element.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by basa

I would be glad if you could point out the 'half truths'.



I really don't see that. Apologising would be an admission of wrong doing. The culture of the west allows for critique or satirising almost any subject on earth. The muslim community here should understand that and tolerate it even if they don't like it. Plus I really feel the Muslim nutters would capitalise on any 'back down' by pushing the limits of what they can do to us even further.



Again I don't recall Denmark involved in hostilities against Afghanistan or Iraq. The only lives at risk are put at risk by the activities of the nutter element.

By half truths I was referring to wikipedia - an online encyclopedia "edited by anyone".

No one has anything to lose by apologizing - this isn't a macho exercise. Believe me, it's a lot easier not having to deal with "what if" after the fact.

Denmark is the only Scandanavian country to throw it's full weight, both in the form of troops and diplomatic backing, behind the US led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.