Cartoons Cause Outrage- Again

[LazyGun]

A mini- storm has erupted, yet again, over a cartoon. This time it is an innocuous Jesus and Mo cartoon, worn on the T-shirts of 2 atheist studio guests debating religion on a BBC TV show. The BBC chose to censor the image of the T-shirts by pixillating them. Maajid Nawaz, also a guest on the show, an one-time islamic fundamentalist radical and now head of the Quilliam Foundation, was prompted to tweet that the image was innocuous and that God was greater than the outrage prompted by the image itself.

Cue hysterical muslim outrage, death threats - and a petition, organised by a muslim LibDem activist, to bar Nawaz from being the Lib-Dem PPC for Hampstead, which has, apparently, garnered 20,000 signatures, all presumably from outraged and offended UK muslims.

Then C4 get in the act, this time censoring the image of mohammed during their transmission.

Should we really be deferring to nonsensical religious sensibilities this way, by pro-actively censoring innocuous imagery that "might" cause offence to some?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/29/in-the-u-k-channel-4-news-program-covers-up-a-jesus-and-mo-drawing-with-a-black-blob-to-avoid-giving-offense/

For myself, I am irritated at the BBC and C4 for the self-censorship, and irritated at these activists lobbying against Nawaz.

[ChillDoubt]

Islamists offended by a cartoon? Whodathunkit!!

[Baldric]

I suppose that if, in the name of Religion you want to be offended,
whatever the censorship (which I disagree with)
Then you'll manage to be offended!

[Baldric]

Are Islamists generally a humourless bunch?

[mikey4444]

What I find puzzling about this is that all the outrage seems to come from the Muslim side and none from the Christians !

[naomi24]

LazyGun, no we should not be deferring to ridiculous religious sensibilities. We have to start saying 'No' and meaning it. I saw BBC's 'The Big Questions' when the two men wore their T-shirts and where Mr Nawaz defended their right to wear them, and the complaints, one at least from a woman with her face hidden by a veil who said their attire offended her. I also saw last night's Channel 4 news where the disingenuous man who organised the petition was interviewed. Here’s that news report and interview - it's worth watching.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/280114

Mikey, that's because in some quarters (the ones who currently shout the loudest) creating images of Mohammed (and of any other living creature) is absolutely forbidden - just in case people start making the images objects of worship. It wasn’t always such a fundamental issue. I’ve bought items in many Islamic countries featuring depictions of human beings and animals – and if you google ‘images of Mohammed’ you’ll find plenty of artwork from the past created by Muslims. Islam is now more backward than it ever was - and if the fundamentalist have their way they will drag the rest of us back into the dark ages with them.

[emmie]

ok to show the cartoon of Jesus but not Mohammed, channel 4 bunch of nitwits.

[emmie]

doesn't Mr Shafiq see the irony of this, a democratic country, where a small band of people object to the cartoon and Mr Nawaz, he says no one is objecting to the freedom of speech, however that is not the case, threats of death should be taken seriously.

[naomi24]

Here's the original BBC debate. The T-shirt question is at about 51 minutes - but the rest is worth watching too.

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/in-the-media/maajid-nawaz-on-the-big-questions-should-human-rights-outweigh-religious-rights/

[LazyGun]

At least the Lib Dems have dismissed these calls for Mr. Nawaz to be deselected. As to Mr. Shafique, it is ironic that he is claiming that these actions he is taking are somehow "democratic" and in keeping with a liberal democratic position.

Apparently, according to Mr. Shafique, the next step is to co-ordinate actions to destabilise Lib Dem marginals - again not exactly the most temperate or democratic response.

And they talked about Mr. Nawaz's language - but I have not seen any detail of what intemperate language that he used.

[emmie]

if the lib Dems were to capitulate i would think they should go and hide their heads in shame. I don't think they will, but you never know with Clegg, he does seem to be an appeaser, or try and keep people on side.

[naomi24]

//And they talked about Mr. Nawaz's language - but I have not seen any detail of what intemperate language that he used. //

I watched the whole BBC programme and there was no intemperate language. Fundamentalist Islam purposefully seeks 'offence', and if there's none to be had, it invents it.

[LazyGun]

@Naomi - I am sure you are right, regarding the original programme. If I understood tonights C4 broadcast correctly, Paddy Ashdown was saying that Nawaz used "intemperate language" in the ensuing twitter storm and online debates - but they have not specified the language used, and indeed apparently he has apologised for it.

I would like to see some examples of this,since as far as I know, in the online exchanges it was those who wished to see Nawaz deselected that were using the intemperate language, but I don't suppose anyone will be re-publishing those exchanges anytime soon.

[emmie]

the Muslim woman wearing a veil saying that she would be marginalised by her community strikes me as a clear projection of her religious beliefs -
strange that in a democratic country she feels the need to wear the burqua and veil, what is it about being out in public that is so wrong to show your face.

[naomi24]

LazyGun, I haven’t seen tonight’s news – but if Paddy Ashdown is making those accusations, I think it incumbent upon him to explain what he’s talking about. I’ll catch the news on Channel 4+1 now.

Actually where this subject is concerned I could use a bit of intemperate language - but I won't. ;o)

[emmie]

Naomi

http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Paddy-Ashdown-chair-meeting-future-Liberal/story-20513696-detail/story.html

[Hypognosis]

This report contain's tonight's football results: if you don't want to hear them, you might want to leave the room now.

A warning: this next report contains flash photography.

This report contains upsetting scenes: those of a sensitive disposition, look away now.

This report is all about depictions of the prophet Mohammed: if you're likely to be offended, please look away now.

Or at least you'd expect that's the way they'd handle it. Since when did the tail take over wagging the dog?

[emmie]

since some of our politicians lost their bottle.

[Hypognosis]

@naomi

I saw the Tuesday C4 interview too. It was one of those infuriating shouting over the top of one another affairs, where you can barely make out what either side is saying.

Annoying that the interviewee seems to think that a petition is enough to unseat a democratically elected member of parliament. It's so easy to launch an e-petition, these days but, doing it that way, there is no control over where, geographically, respondents could come from. It may be 20,000 respondents but these could be from all over the UK, plus Pakistan and the USA, for all we know. Multiple email accounts aren't unknown, either. Collecting physical signatures, door-to-door, strictly within the bounds of the constituency is still the only remotely valid method of drawing up a petition to remove him.

Normally, it would take something on the level of financial irregularities, or worse, for the public to resort to these measures.

[Old_Jim]

I wonder what the reaction would have been if a Muslim had been in the audience wearing a t-shirt ridiculing atheism and proclaiming that God is great.

[emmie]

this is a good piece

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben/maajid-nawaz_b_4685954.html