RE: Freedom of Expression

I really feel there is a breakdown in communication here.

There are cartoons or articles that are intended to mock people. I am not speaking or refering to those. Then there are cartoons or articles intended to provoke violence. If someone provokes you verbally and you end up hitting them because of what they say - I see no difference in your act to the provoker.

I'm sorry, but you're still saying "Well, I'm afraid they murdered you because of the Danish cartoon. You shouldn't have been associated with the publication of that." instead of "You really have no excuse for murdering anyone".

quote:

If someone breaks into your property and you defend it with violence and murder... I see no difference in the behaviours - they are just coming from different angles.

That is entirely unrelated and as far as I'm aware, no cartoon ever broke into anyone's home.

quote:

Possibly I would side on the violence in that case as you are defending yourself and your property from the provocation - but both are abhorant to me. As IB spoke of - it is about honour, principle, duty and loyalty.

This is where I think you have misunderstood me. No one is claiming that killing is excusable based on religious reasons. Its painful and abhorant and causes suffering. But there is media out there provoking OR giving religious fundementalists the excuse to attack - on purpose. The cause can be just as painful and abhorant as the effect. It's the whole mentality of poisoning opinion. It does happen. The danish cartoons incited - the arabic ones incited - the cause = the effect. One is the silent gun, the other is the one that makes the noise.

No. There is no gun in a cartoon. You cannot die from looking at a cartoon, no matter how reprehensible it is. The only deaths that occurred were in a violent response to that cartoon. And being offended does not, no matter how you're trying to paint it, give you an excuse to kill people.

Indeed it doesn't. Any murder in my opinion, isn't acceptable. Nor are images that incite hatred of any kind.

Indeed. And should you ever find yourself in a position of choosing between viewing an offensive cartoon or being beheaded, I'm sure you will quickly decide they aren't "equally evil" after all.

*Hands you the stone.*

Blunt enough for you? You can hit me as many times as you desire - it wouldn't alter a thing. But then, if you desire to resort to violence - even the cyber kind - that shows little control.

As IB said - gladly have my head.

Yes, I was refering to yourself - You have tried to disembowel the posts of anyone you disagree - with petty insults, snide remarks and personal attacks, instead of showing respect for someone who you may feel is not on your wavelength. You offer to incite by proffering argument instead of discussion and now resort to violence when the first does not work. That is pretty much fundementalist behaviour. You may feel that you will need to respond to my thoughts and if you do, I always read them - as I respect your ideas and your thoughts on any subject on any thread. However what I do not have respect for is your lack of manners at times.(Which maybe doesn't bother you anyway as its my own opinion).

Who said anything about love? I did - simple comment - so I would be grateful if you didnt try and make it look as though I had said you had made any comment on love. It was a simple rhetorical question.

Because in this world - love, like respect (as Level commented earlier) is a rare thing to find.

Indeed it doesn't. Any murder in my opinion, isn't acceptable. Nor are images that incite hatred of any kind.

Indeed. And should you ever find yourself in a position of choosing between viewing an offensive cartoon or being beheaded, I'm sure you will quickly decide they aren't "equally evil" after all.

Hello English - please don't feel you have to apologise, it isnt my intention for you to feel that. I can see the path you see me taking and I am trying to explain you are wrong (not in a wrong way - I dont mean that so sound insulting - I mean your viewing my statement not as it is meant.)

If a media publication of any kind (and I am not going to single out a cartoon here - I am talking any media publication so we dont get caught up in a muslim conspiracy thread) is posted with the intention to incite violence that is as abhorant as the response of violence. If someone kills innocent people because of a media publication - that is imo - abhorant and painful. But if the media was meant to provoke the violence in the first place - they are still both evil. It has nothing to do with the reason - both are actions leading to violence. One is just overt, one is covert.

We are not necessarily speaking of publications that are produced to create light of situations. Satire and Comedy has been the saviour of the soul for many years. If someone cannot laugh at themself and instead preferes 'payback' then of course the payback is a thousand times worse than the joke. But there are publications which are posted to incite, posted to provoke. And it is those that are no different to blowing up a target. I sat here and watched a news report on the editor of the 'Die welt' who made no bones that his newspaper knew of the consequences and admited that the cartoon was blasphemous. Le soir admited that the caraccatures(fuck my spelling) were incrimminating. These are basically admitting that they knew the cartoons were attacks on a faith. Now they are also aware that there are extremists out there who would take offense to the cartoon. Not only did they support the attack - they perpetuated it by reprinting them - thus inciting more violence. Theres no respect, theres no dignity and there is no justice.

No - of course not - but the muslims holding such placards are inciting violence, and they know that. Just as the media did.

quote:

No. There is no gun in a cartoon. You cannot die from looking at a cartoon, no matter how reprehensible it is. The only deaths that occurred were in a violent response to that cartoon. And being offended does not, no matter how you're trying to paint it, give you an excuse to kill people.

You are right, there isnt - but the gun is a tool. So is the cartoon. So is any media - Its People who kill people, as I said before - whether that is with a gun or with a piece of paper. And I have never excused murder - not once - anyway, thats not my job - but I have said that both ways are responsible when written and posted knowing what the outcome may be.

Let me ask you this. Is Mugabe innocent of genocide, just because he may have never pulled a trigger?

Thank you IB - I appriciate your support and understanding.

quote:

That picture didn't say kill anyone, it didn't say attack people. It said you guys are fucked up and violent. The way I took the photo was they are killing themselves by rejecting their own teachings, and warring. That would be why the bomb was on his head, it was going to blow his head off(Blow up from within). It wasn't on a non-muslims head. That would say they were going to blow non-muslims up. But they did that anyway. LOL. So, in reality maybe it should have been.

It was reported and openly admited that the publications that posted the cartoons understood the implications of them, the reason they were drawn and that they had (in the words of Die Welt) 'the right to blasphemy'.

It isnt the drawing itself - it is the intention of the publication which in this case, was religious bigotry.

There is a difference between sweeping generalisation and intended incitement.

It isnt the drawing itself - it is the intention of the publication which in this case, was religious bigotry.

There is a difference between sweeping generalisation and intended incitement.

quote:

Well, blasphemy in this case is any picture of the "prophet". Is that what you are saying? That no picture of the "the prophet" should be aloud published?

I was on a muslim forum right after this happened, and that was some of their views, just the fact that a picture of "the prophet" was published(against there beliefs), it wouldn't have mattered what the context was. To me that is absurd as well. Religions shouldn't dictate what can and can't be pictured.

I agree with you, Religions shouldnt dictate what can and cant be pictured. But it doesnt really matter what the image was - it is that the media publicising them (apart from the original, whos comments were kept more or less privately with muslim community leaders) actually stated that they were posting with the intention to commit blasphemy. That is incitement. That is no different to someone posting something and saying they are posting with the intention to be racist. Or the intention to be sexist.

I know muslims from different sections of the community from sufis to sunnis and dependant on the section, they took the cartoons in different light. A devout sufi follower I know found them laughable. Why did the cartoonist pick on muslims rather than christian for example first(which latter occured in the series of cartoons) - because they knew the impact it would have would be far greater, would gain them more publicity and to incite (as admitted during the reprints of said article).

It isnt just the media - it is the intent behind it.

It isnt the drawing itself - it is the intention of the publication which in this case, was religious bigotry.

There is a difference between sweeping generalisation and intended incitement.

If you're offended by a publication, boycott it. Demonstrate outside its building. Demand a printed apology. The cartoons were at best, a ridiculous idea and at worse, insulting beyond words to followers of Mohammed. That still doesn't excuse killing someone over it, no matter how many times you type it.

quote:

If someone kills innocent people because of a media publication - that is imo - abhorant and painful. But if the media was meant to provoke the violence in the first place - they are still both evil.

Indeed they are. On that point, we don't disagree.

quote:

It has nothing to do with the reason - both are actions leading to violence. One is just overt, one is covert.

One is fatal, one isn't

quote:

We are not necessarily speaking of publications that are produced to create light of situations. Satire and Comedy has been the saviour of the soul for many years. If someone cannot laugh at themself and instead preferes 'payback' then of course the payback is a thousand times worse than the joke. But there are publications which are posted to incite, posted to provoke. And it is those that are no different to blowing up a target.

See, we part ways again. Blowing up a target goes bang. The explosion kills and maims. You have to stop comparing a newspaper to an explosion.

quote:

I sat here and watched a news report on the editor of the 'Die welt' who made no bones that his newspaper knew of the consequences and admited that the cartoon was blasphemous. Le soir admited that the caraccatures(fuck my spelling) were incrimminating. These are basically admitting that they knew the cartoons were attacks on a faith.

Which they were. And ridiculously so. But many Muslim leaders wholeheartedly condemned the violence that followed. Attacking someone's faith in print is not a death penalty crime.

quote:

Now they are also aware that there are extremists out there who would take offense to the cartoon.

Precisely. So do you not print something because you fear violent reprisals from a small minority? Hmmmm.....where would that end?

quote:

Not only did they support the attack - they perpetuated it by reprinting them - thus inciting more violence. Theres no respect, theres no dignity and there is no justice.

There certainly isn't any justice in bypassing the law, resorting to violence and killing people either.

quote:

So when Muslims appear in London holding placards "Death to the UK" anyone whose loyalty and honour is with the UK has the right to behead a protestor, do they?
No - of course not - but the muslims holding such placards are inciting violence, and they know that. Just as the media did.

We agree again. Your "of course not" is exactly what my point is on this whole issue. Should a section of the Muslim community have reacted violently to those cartoons? Of course not.

quote:

No. There is no gun in a cartoon. You cannot die from looking at a cartoon, no matter how reprehensible it is. The only deaths that occurred were in a violent response to that cartoon. And being offended does not, no matter how you're trying to paint it, give you an excuse to kill people. You are right, there isnt - but the gun is a tool. So is the cartoon. So is any media - Its People who kill people, as I said before - whether that is with a gun or with a piece of paper. And I have never excused murder - not once - anyway, thats not my job - but I have said that both ways are responsible when written and posted knowing what the outcome may be. Let me ask you this. Is Mugabe innocent of genocide, just because he may have never pulled a trigger?

Actively giving orders for executions is a world apart from printing a religiously offensive cartoon.. The cartoons didn't order the executions of Muslims.

They insulted their faith, not sent someone out to put a bullet in someone's forehead.

Call it 'blasphemy' - call it inciting religious hatred. It all results in understanding what they are saying to a section of peoples and provoking a response.

It is the provocation not the cartoon itself.

I am christian - do I become violent at religious attack on my belief? No - but I will stand by it. Do all muslims become violent - no - but there are fundemental elements who will. The same can be said for any group - animal groups, racism groups, any groups. When people target specifically to provoke that minority and make claims of their right to post 'incriminating' images - is then you have to question the intent.

The original posting of the cartoon was apologised for, with the statement that they defended their right to post the cartoons. Thats fair enough - It is the reprinting by other publications which becomes questionable when backed up by claims of said organisations that people have the right to incite and profess religious hatred - or hatred of any kind no matter what.