Double standards?

[jake-the-peg]

Does anybody here think the Muslim cartoons should have been published but that this:

http://urchin.earth.li/~ganesh/kirkup.html

Should not?

Before you click this is the poem that resulted in Gay News being found guilty of Blasphemy in 1977 and portrays Jesus as Gay

[nedflanders]

30 years ago jake, I am glad the courts dont waste their time nowadays, there would no time left to prosecute all the bad people who speed on their way to work in the morning.

The cartoons were wrong but countries with islamic governements depict jews as pigs in cartoons so whats good for the goose.

[Englishbird]

Isn't that a bit like saying 'well he did it first'

Doesn't make it right, or acceptable. I can see both sides of the cartoon issue, but I don't think 'well they do it, so we can too' is a viable arguement. Surely we should be promoting compassion and tolerance.

I'm no left wing liberal, but I do believe there are two sides to every story.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Well, I am a left-wing liberal, but I agree with English-bird. It makes no sense to castigate 'them' for their behaviour on the one hand, then use their actions as justification for our own on the other. There are more credible arguements to defend the publication of the cartoons (and, in my opinion, the whole issue is, again as English-bird says, slightly less black and white than some people would have it).

[nedflanders]

exactly englishbird, we try to practice tolerance as do the jewish people but it seems that it only works one way. the british people are the most tolerant that I know but that tolerance will be starting to strain soon. Its their way or we'll burn down your embassies attack your peacekeepers and so on. If any of our soldiers gets harmed in Afghanistan because of this it will be a sad day and I will have lost all respect for the muslim faith.

[Englishbird]

ned, I agree with you on a lot of things, but on this I feel your argument is contradicting itself.

I understand the frustration, but that is not enough to go back on our tolerance. Our argument is for freedom of expression and press, the second argument is that within that freedom there has to be respect and tolerance, as jakes question, and as my earlier point that we don't print certain words or articles anymore because we know they are offensive.

Their lack of tolerance is not vindication for us to lose ours, if we do, we've already lost.

'If our soldiers get harmed in afghanistan' - surely another contradiction.

[jake-the-peg]

30 years ago or not Blasphemy remains an offense in Britain, the law was ammended after the Gay News case but it is still on the books but protects only the delicate sensibilities of Christians.

It's also worth rembering that Christian England is still capable of taking as much religious offense as Islam - I'm tempted to paste the above poem into a posting and see how long it takes the Ed to remove it!

Personally I question the idea that we should necessarily respect deep held religous beliefs at all - but I do recognise that I'm in the minority here

[Englishbird]

I would say a deeply held religious belief that hurts another is not intitled to respect. However, I do not believe in god, so all religious beliefs to me are incredible, but I would still respect anothers right to believe.

[El D]

Well I agree with most of your posts so far Englishbird - but regarding your point about respect and tolerance within freedoms, surely this applies to those who read and listen to those freely offered opinions as well as those who publish or impart them? As you say, when we lose our tolerance because of others we have lost to them, but this tolerance must be applied equally across all spectrums - whether we personally find it offensive or whether we know others will. Personal offense is not a valid reason for censorship or control.

While I respect others beliefs, they should also respect my right to subject them to the ridicule I feel they deserve, and I would not self-censor because of their feelings. A society where opinions are freely offered and open for all to evaluate for themselves is far more desirable than one where people judge for themselves what might be offensive to others, and indeed where the others themselves have the power to censor such opinions even before they are proferred to society. A truly civilised society embraces open debate, not one constrained due to the childlike emotional nature of certain parties.

[nedflanders]

jake IMO the ed would remove it because it is sexually graphic not because of the religious issue.

Let me clear this up Englishbird.

1. I am not religous in any way either and do not find any other religion offensive or not.


2. I think the cartoons were wrong and should not have been published.


3. I understand editors rights to publish them. (they were even printed again yesterday in a french magazine after a court ruling)


4. I have nothing against law abiding citizens who protest peacefully.


5. What I do not abide is hypocrasy and violent protest of which I find certain countries guilty of in this issue.

[Englishbird]

ned, I completely agree with you, it's just that we can't take 'their' i.e. the people behaving like this, reactions and beliefs as justification for 'us' ie, 'humanitarians', in some form, taking our eye off the ball. I say this as much to myself as to anyone else, as I do have a tendancy to fight fire with fire but I think with these issues, that will only ever make it worse. And I'm kind of worried for the world at the moment, if that doesn't sound too melodramatic.

[nedflanders]

You, me and many other Englishbird. We shouldnt be but cos of some stooopid cartoons a revolution could have started.