Cartoons upset Danish Muslims

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Shin Pad

I'm all for freedom of the press, but, there has to be some common sense to it. Is it really worth printing something that has upset such a large group of people in the World? Just because you CAN do print something like this, doesn't mean you should. I know a lot of publications (the WS is a good example), would never have printed these, other than to make a point of the fact that freedom of the press wasn't called into question (and the fact that it has become such a hot issue).

It would be like printing graphic pictures of a horrific auto accident - it would be perfectly legal, but, most if not all publications would not print or depict such a scene. It would offend many people. So, my question is, why try and stir the pot in the Muslim world by doing this - especially with the deteriorating relations between the Middle East and the west?

Anyway, to me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press - it's an issue of using good judgement.

Certainly that is at the heart of the issue. However, I was talking to my mom last night and when this came up she said she was glad she'd finally be able to see the images for herself so she can understand what all the fuss is about. The images are central to the story yet so many Canadians haven't seen them. The argument being made is they are available on the web - but someone like my mom simply isn't web savvy enough to find them. She relies on two things for her news - TV and Newspapers...both visual mediums - yet she has to this point been unable to see the cartoons for herself.

Edit - you can also tell the story of the auto accident without showing the picture. But can this story be told without showing the source of all the outrage - e.g. the cartoons in question?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shin Pad

I'm all for freedom of the press, but, there has to be some common sense to it. Is it really worth printing something that has upset such a large group of people in the World? Just because you CAN do print something like this, doesn't mean you should. I know a lot of publications (the WS is a good example), would never have printed these, other than to make a point of the fact that freedom of the press wasn't called into question (and the fact that it has become such a hot issue).

It would be like printing graphic pictures of a horrific auto accident - it would be perfectly legal, but, most if not all publications would not print or depict such a scene. It would offend many people. So, my question is, why try and stir the pot in the Muslim world by doing this - especially with the deteriorating relations between the Middle East and the west?

Anyway, to me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press - it's an issue of using good judgement.

It's for educational purposes don't you know? A public service. Let everyone know what the fuss is about because it is impossible to see these images in Canada if you want to so they must to be published. The Western Standard must display them because nobody knows what the images in question look like. It's got nothing to do with money or publicity or delusions about being some self-styled anti-PC crusader.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Shin Pad

Is it really worth printing something that has upset such a large group of people in the World?

Yes, there is the argument that I do not need to eat a pile of doggy doo to know it tastes bad, BUT in this case many people would like to know what the fuss is all about - what set off the riots? So far I have only heard of one cartoon's description.

It would be like printing graphic pictures of a horrific auto accident - it would be perfectly legal, but, most if not all publications would not print or depict such a scene.

Notice how with a lot of newscasts today they give the preamble that what you are about to see may be gruesome, & then show the pic. The 11 o'clock news is loaded with pics of dead bodies, mass graves, offensive flag burnings. Newspapers in Toronto had no trouble printing a pic of the mom & son who drowned in their car here - I didn't need to see that.



"It would offend many people. So, my question is, why try and stir the pot in the Muslim world by doing this - especially with the deteriorating relations between the Middle East and the west?"

So don't do anything for fear of tipping the cart. Don't show episodes of 24 with Muslim terrorists, take all copies of 'True Lies' off the shelf, don't show any historical German WW2 movie footage, don't show two men kissing, don't show the burning of the US flag, no more caracitures of GW Bush, Harper, Blair....hell the whole cast of SNL might as well start looking for a job right now! (Anyone catch their skit with Steve Martin addressing the Hamas victory party? )

Anyway, to me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press - it's an issue of using good judgement.

Also a subjective issue.

[Reggie Dunlop]

The crux of the issue isn't even the illustrations or the content or intent expressed within them. It's merely a rallying point for the traditional Muslim hierarchy unable to come to grips with technology and the enablement of different ideas that can be expressed with it. A Danish newspaper (old media) is the least of their fears. Offensive images are the least of their fears. What they fear most is reasonable discussion that runs contrary to their views.

Giving equal time to equally offensive images so that equally diverse groups can be equally offended is a waste of time. That's not freedom of expression, that's exploitation.

[photon]

The story so far: Danish paper publishes cartoons that mock Muslims. An Iranian paper responds with a Holocaust cartoons contest. Now, a group of Israelis announce their own anti-Semitic cartoons contest.

http://drawn.ca/2006/02/14/israeli-a...rtoon-contest/

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by photon

http://drawn.ca/2006/02/14/israeli-a...rtoon-contest/

Haw. Well done. That logo is a riot.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Those crazy infidels of fark.com weigh in with a Mohammed Sitcom contest

[Hack&Lube]

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Shin Pad

I'm all for freedom of the press, but, there has to be some common sense to it. Is it really worth printing something that has upset such a large group of people in the World? Just because you CAN do print something like this, doesn't mean you should. I know a lot of publications (the WS is a good example), would never have printed these, other than to make a point of the fact that freedom of the press wasn't called into question (and the fact that it has become such a hot issue).

It would be like printing graphic pictures of a horrific auto accident - it would be perfectly legal, but, most if not all publications would not print or depict such a scene. It would offend many people. So, my question is, why try and stir the pot in the Muslim world by doing this - especially with the deteriorating relations between the Middle East and the west?

Anyway, to me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press - it's an issue of using good judgement.

Actually, that is what has started this entire thing: A desire by a newspaper to test the limits of "self-censorship" and to see if newspapers were eroding their own right to freedom of the press.

Honestly, I suspect that this is merely the tip of the iceberg. I believe that Muslim leaders - moderate and radical - are privately overjoyed by these images. They can use them to point out how evil the western world is in an attempt at stalling the inevitable desire for the younger generations to have more personal liberties and more freedom of their own lives. These religious leaders see the decline of Christianity in the liberal world and fear that when their own people begin to outgrow their own restrictive religions. Christianity has responded by becomming much more tolerant, adapting to the people. At some point the Muslim faith will have to step out of the dark ages and do the same. Evidently, today is not that day.

[Cowperson]

Blasphemy ain't what it used to be . . . . . Washington Post.

Blasphemy -- "denying the being or providence of God . . . profane scoffing at the holy scripture" according to Blackstone's Commentaries -- had been an offense in Western society since the Greeks, and it was no joke in Colonial America. There were the Salem witch trials, of course, and it was a capital offense in Connecticut.

Even if such penalties were rarely if ever carried out (there's no record of a Marylander actually having his tongue nailed to a tree), the law was still stern. In 1811, a New Yorker named John Ruggles was convicted of blasphemy for shouting "Jesus Christ was a ******* and his mother must be a whore!" An appellate judge upheld the verdict, seconding the jury's reasoning that Ruggles had "openly and wantonly" reviled Jesus and Mary, with no purpose.

Such convictions came to an end in the 20th century. Civil libertarians in this country began to regard blasphemy as a strictly religious issue, and the courts agreed. The new American way was a sharp cultural break from the underlying bodies of legal thought in Europe and the United Kingdom, which had state-sanctioned churches. The position was cemented by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1952, in a case called Burstyn v. Wilson . New York had banned Italian filmmaker's Roberto Rossellini's film, "The Miracle," about a peasant woman who believed she was the Virgin Mary. It was legally imported into the country, but the Catholic Church lambasted it as sacrilegious. It was banned, a decision upheld by the state appellate court.

But the Supreme Court overturned the case, ruling: "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine."

Since then, the image and topic of Christ has been subjected to almost every indignity imaginable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021402082.html

Cowperson

[azzarish]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Yes, there is the argument that I do not need to eat a pile of doggy doo to know it tastes bad, BUT in this case many people would like to know what the fuss is all about - what set off the riots? So far I have only heard of one cartoon's description.

I'm sorry but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the fuss is all about, all you have to do turn the TV on.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Notice how with a lot of newscasts today they give the preamble that what you are about to see may be gruesome, & then show the pic. The 11 o'clock news is loaded with pics of dead bodies, mass graves, offensive flag burnings. Newspapers in Toronto had no trouble printing a pic of the mom & son who drowned in their car here - I didn't need to see that.

We're not talking about newscasts on TV we're talking about material being published in newspapers. That mom & son who drowned in the car, did you see that printed in any newspapers?

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

So don't do anything for fear of tipping the cart. Don't show episodes of 24 with Muslim terrorists, take all copies of 'True Lies' off the shelf, don't show any historical German WW2 movie footage, don't show two men kissing, don't show the burning of the US flag, no more caracitures of GW Bush, Harper, Blair....hell the whole cast of SNL might as well start looking for a job right now! (Anyone catch their skit with Steve Martin addressing the Hamas victory party? )

Tell me something, if you neighbour was a psychopath would you deliberataly do things to **** him off.

This whole damn thing is not to do with freedom of speech anymore, it's to do with acting responsibily.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by azzarish

I'm sorry but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the fuss is all about, all you have to do turn the TV on.

I don't recall any broadcasts of the images.

We're not talking about newscasts on TV we're talking about material being published in newspapers. That mom & son who drowned in the car, did you see that printed in any newspapers?

Both in the Globe & Mail and the Toronto Star the day after the accident.

Tell me something, if you neighbour was a psychopath would you deliberataly do things to **** him off.

Like park my car in a perfectly legal parking space, even though it happens to be right across from his driveway?

Tell me something, if your neighbor was a psychopath would you leave your home?

This whole damn thing is not to do with freedom of speech anymore, it's to do with acting responsibily.

And in this case acting responsibly is subjective. Some publishers & editors feel that the responsible thing to do is to print the images and let the public judge for themselves. Others feel there is no point in 'poking the bear'. As the Calgary Sun editor wrote, it is called editing. Now the public has the option to buy the magazine or not, just as Riesman has the option to stock the magazine or not.

Once again, the National Post had no trouble printing vile anti-semetic cartoons last weekend. They also printed a satirical "Jewish community takes arms and writes letters" column. No call for boycotts or mass paper burnings afterwards.

How am I supposed to fight sterotypes and empathize if I have not seen the offending image. For all I know the cartoon was just a generic Arab looking face - was there a caption? a Title? was the face saying something? It could have been Alladin, or Salidin, or Ali Baba for all I know. Just because someone interprets it as Muhammad (sp?) dosen't make it so.
It doesn't make the cartoon any better or worse, but it shoots more holes in the "Islam does not allow images" argument.

[azzarish]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

And in this case acting responsibly is subjective. Some publishers & editors feel that the responsible thing to do is to print the images and let the public judge for themselves.

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you, that is not responsible behaviour IMO in light of current events. I'm not saying newspapers should be held to ransom by extremists or radicals I'm just saying it's a matter of respect too.

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

How am I supposed to fight sterotypes and empathize if I have not seen the offending image.

But you basically know why there is an outcry right, I mean you know something was printed and has caused anger amongst a set of people, and you have the general gist of what was printed. Is there any reason to take it further by re-printing it and causing further anger here in Canada where generally the muslims are well behaved? Why risk animosity and misunderstandings in this country too? And it's already started with the hate crimes accusations.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by azzarish

But you basically know why there is an outcry right, I mean you know something was printed and has caused anger amongst a set of people, and you have the general gist of what was printed.

Weren't the originals printed back in September? Why was there no riots/protests back then?

It just seems so calculated to me, like there was a rally in the Muslim world until it reached the boiling point. If it was such a big deal, why weren't there people dying over this in the fall?

[Resolute 14]

That is just too logical, KFF. The cartoons themselves never caused a single riot. Perhaps we would be better off following assarish's suggestion and sticking our head up our asses for fear of offending someone rather than looking into why riots started several months after the fact.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by azzarish

And it's already started with the hate crimes accusations.

Which from what I have heard today police and crown prosecutors have already dismissed when requested to have charges laid in the matter.

From an outsider looking onto all of this, I see a mob rules type of mentality in the Muslim protests. But in this case, it is over something they hold dear to their hearts, right?

Again, as an outsider, I see the Americans with an equally important aspect/symbol to their culture; the American flag, which has been burned at one venue or another, day in, day out, for years. I have not, however, seen massive protests in the country down under us where people are getting killed over that aspect.

Cartoon vs flag. Religion vs homeland.

Violence vs peace.

What side does civilization align with here?

As the decades have passed, I have been pleasantly surprised that we in Canada have yet to see any tense situations like those in the Middle East and elsewhere demonstrated on our own soil. To me, the proposed ideal of a "mosaic of peoples" in Canada (versus the "melting pot" in the States) depends on the ability of those whom might be impacted by situations like this to voice their concerns here peacefully. And they have in almost every situation I recall.

In Canada, civilization lives.

I hope we can discuss and debate issues because we are civilized... and that includes being open to all the facts and data, and in this case, it is being able to view the sparkplug itself: the cartoons in question.

Our "Crazy Canucks" were skiers. Admirable folk.

I look around the world and see "Crazy ______'s" and get concerned for very, very evident reasons.... they just are not civilized. And it shows.... unfortunately in some cases, just like some of the cartoons expressed.

If the Muslim world wants to be considered peaceful, they need to purge those that are not. Period. And that isn't going to happen soon, obviously.

Chicken... egg...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Again, as an outsider, I see the Americans with an equally important aspect/symbol to their culture; the American flag, which has been burned at one venue or another, day in, day out, for years. I have not, however, seen massive protests in the country down under us where people are getting killed over that aspect.

Mohammed is quite a bit more sacred to the followers of that religion than the flag is to your average American. The two are not comparable.

Anyhoo, I see there were more vacation snapshots from Abu Ghraib released today. We'll show them what being "civilized" is all about, right?

[HOZ]

Musilim outrage is a manufactured outrage.

There is now more than enough evidence of this.

1. The Danish paper published 12 cartoons in September. No outrage
2. A paper in Egypt published the same cartoons soon after. No Outrage
3. 3 radical Imams from Denmark drive to Egypt and get themselve on TV showing 3 extra cartoons they said were published with the other 12. Crap hits the fan.

Considering that Muhammed has been in pictures and paintings (Muslim ones) for centuries makes these outrages a joke. They are manufactured.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Mohammed is quite a bit more sacred to the followers of that religion than the flag is to your average American. The two are not comparable.

Try getting away with that in many places in the US- they will run you out of the country so fast.....

There are American civilians who get up every morning a salute the US flag that hangs from their home - and they leagally carry guns.

Like the new EU propsal to criminalize blasphamy - many Americans want to criminalize the burning of the US flag.

Also,many article have pointed out that Jesus, Moses & Bhudda have gotten the same treatment in the West.

Once again, how am I supposed to know what they are offended about if I have not seen it.

Do I know that anti-semitec cartoons are offensive, yes because I was shown some and taught what made them so.

Anyhoo, I see there were more vacation snapshots from Abu Ghraib released today. We'll show them what being "civilized" is all about, right?

Yup, Blair is calling them Heroes and Bush wants togive them medals.

I am pretty sure the Brits have called for an investigation. The US convicted soldiers for the mistreatment of PoWs in Iraq.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Mohammed is quite a bit more sacred to the followers of that religion than the flag is to your average American. The two are not comparable.

The two ways you compared them might or might not be comparable... but the two overall groups have very similar situations. I do believe they are comparable. To not recognize the similarity is irrational.