Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News1 min ago
Depictions of Mohammed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672642.stm
Is it wrong of the western press to intentionally inflame an already fragile situation by reproducing the Danish cartoons?
Or is it a valid response to those wishing to impose their religion on the rest of the world? If so, should the British press find a backbone and do the same?
Is it wrong of the western press to intentionally inflame an already fragile situation by reproducing the Danish cartoons?
Or is it a valid response to those wishing to impose their religion on the rest of the world? If so, should the British press find a backbone and do the same?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by OBonio. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I find it rather unsettling that the immediate reaction in Gaza is yet another call to arms and the threatening of another nation state's people. I can understand a certain level of disgruntlement at having your religion lampooned but I don't recall the Archbishop of Canterbury hosing down the Monty Python team with an AK47 in outrage at "The Life of Brian". I know you may argue that The Life of Brian was made by Christians for Christians (perhaps) and therefore is different from what is going on here, but the more stories like this that come out, the more the followers of Islam come across as a humourless people, intent on there being only their way or no way.
Personally, I think they should build a bridge and get over themselves. Freedom of speech, is, after all, a fundamental right in the free world.
I don't see any blame on the West at all. If I want to lampoon mohammed and call him a stupid towel head or whatever that is my right. If they then want to kick up a fuss and moan and wail that is their right, but they cannot impose a ban on the West of this material, nor should it even be considered.
oh who have the west upset now, with our pesky freedom of speach... so it was a tad rude but if your religion can't cope with a cartoon character mocking you then your in trouble. so they refuse our products after this? obviously they will be refusing out aid as well i assume... surely they couldn't want any help from europe after such as slight????
maybe if we ignore them they'll go away
I'm all in favour of people having the right to print these cartoons, and like Trojan am worried that the instant reaction is to start with armed threats. However the right to free speech does not mean that it's a good idea to say whatever you like whenever you like. A bit of common sense might tell you that a lot of people are going to get upset by this. I could draw cartoons superimposing Jesus' head on to Hitler's body, and it would be my right to do so, but I've got a bit more common sense, taste and respect for others. And it doesn't have to be religious. Perhaps I could print tasteless jokes about the death of Princess Diana, but again, I've got more common sense.
Those idiots with guns should put them down, the papers should apologise for being tastless BUT we have nothing to answer for by having the right to print them.
Surely someone must have realised that Muhammed with a bomb shaped headress would outrage a lot of people? I personally don't find it offensive, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that a lot of people will. Obviously you can't please everyone all the time, but we're not talking about 'outraged from Diss' complaining about swearing in a film, we're talking about a relationship already on a knife-edge that has been stoked up by a crass (and not especially witty) cartoon. I hope that I'm not being overly PC, and I ferverntly believe in free speech, but it seems like common sense would have halted this earlier.
Sorry, we shouldn't pander to them? Presumably moderates in Muslim countries are being told the same things. If you know that a particular course of action will be seen as gravely offensive to a group of people and you do it anyway and for no good reason, then you are a fool. Was there a good reason to publish such cartoons? It's not as they were very funny, or making a valid point. They were stereotyped and crass at best.
What would people feel if a Middle Eastern newspaper published a cartoon of a Western religious leader that suggest they were guilty of crimes against children (that some of the members of that church are guilty of)?
I don't think it would generate the same wave of outrage Trot, because the West has been lampooning it's religious leaders for years - 'The actress and the bishop', 'Catholic Priests and altar boys', 'The pope, the rabbi, etc, etc' It certainly wouldn't make me want to take up arms (but then I am A Godless infidel)
Trotbot - you make a good point, but I would suggest you consider the answer your own question. Would the reaction to a satirical cartoon made against the West be as extreme, violent and threatening?
This is surely the result of two cultures that have little understanding of each others 'value systems', and share almost nothing in terms of mutual respect or understanding, meeting with hostility and mistrust.
The cartoon is a 'graphic' illustration of a level of intolerance that has become a gulf between our two societies/cultures (look at how western medias have begun to almost 'demonise' the people of islam), and they in turn, are reacting in a manner dictated by their culture. The result, a head on collision.
Why has there been a growing trend in the last 10 years for people to belive that speaking your mind in any situation is a good idea or an admirable quality? It's as if a consideration for other people's feelings and beliefs has become an outmoded concept.
Publishing tasteless cartoons is not brave, or a defiant act of freedom of speech. It's not honest, or 'saying it like it is', it's just stupid.
Perhaps Sir Ian Blair is sat at home saying. "Why didn't I just say I was exercising free speech? Should have thought of that one first before I crassly opened my mouth about the Soham murders".
bill barlow - maybe actually reading the report would enlighten you...
Why offensive - "Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet or Allah."
Don't believe anybody does - "Some Muslim countries have withdrawn their ambassadors to Denmark and boycotted Danish products after a paper there first printed the cartoons.
Norway has closed its West Bank mission to the public in response to threats."
Why offensive - "Islamic tradition bans depictions of the Prophet or Allah."
Don't believe anybody does - "Some Muslim countries have withdrawn their ambassadors to Denmark and boycotted Danish products after a paper there first printed the cartoons.
Norway has closed its West Bank mission to the public in response to threats."
It's not hard to imagine why it's so offensive. Muhammed is an incredibly venerated figure within the Islamic faith, who revealed the direct word of God to mankind. Ridiculing him is going to be offensive. Linking him with bombing is going to be offensive, especially to those peaceful Muslims to whom fanaticism is as abhorrent to as to any of us.
What were the newspapers standing up for? Nothing. They rather stupidly and crassly wanted to poke fun at the Muslim faith, and now that there is a storm brewing they're trying to turn it into a crusade about freedom of speech, rather than hold their hands up and apologise.
