Newspapers decide to reprint Mohammed (PBUH) cartoons

[crayon]

Something from wikipedia about incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in the UK:

Holocaust denial is not covered under this legislation, and neither is incitement to hatred against religions other than Judaism and Sikhism . This has been criticised by Muslim groups who argue that it gives preferential treatment to other religions than their own which is open to attack. As of 2005, the British government are attempting to bring in a similar law for incitement to religious hatred, but this has met with tough opposition by civil liberties groups, comedians, and others, who argue that it would stifle religious debate. It is also argued that incitement against Muslims is already covered by existing laws concerning incitement to violence.
​

Source

I had no idea about this. Are you kidding me? How is that fair? The law should either apply to all religions, or none.

I'm still in awe of how this law can be supported if it doesn't apply to everyone..

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Holocaust denial[/URL] is not covered under this legislation, and neither is incitement to hatred against religions other than Judaism and Sikhism . This has been criticised by Muslim groups who argue that it gives preferential treatment to other religions than their own which is open to attack.[/URL]

I agree! - But it should also cover other religions too. It's only fair.

 

[------]

:salamext:

^ Too right.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

the Danish fascist government

Denmark is run by fascists now? News to me.

Is this really the level of political debate that we've sunk to here on the forum?

Something from wikipedia about incitement to ethnic or racial hatred in the UK:

Holocaust denial is not covered under this legislation, and neither is incitement to hatred against religions other than Judaism and Sikhism . This has been criticised by Muslim groups who argue that it gives preferential treatment to other religions than their own which is open to attack. As of 2005, the British government are attempting to bring in a similar law for incitement to religious hatred, but this has met with tough opposition by civil liberties groups, comedians, and others, who argue that it would stifle religious debate. It is also argued that incitement against Muslims is already covered by existing laws concerning incitement to violence.

Straightforwardly unfair - I agree.

Peace

 

[guyabano]

I still wonder what is discussed here? Nothing will change anyway, the pictures will be posted - BASTA !

After that, standard procedure: Boykott of muslims, burning flags, yelling, screaming, , bombing threats, again more antipathty against middle east. all in all, new fuel to keep the fire alive.

Anyway, I always here this: 'Allah protect us'.
Oh, so well, there should be no problem. The bad guys will be punished and will burn in hell, so why this cinema ?

Can me move on to some new news?

Salamat po !

Peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

I think the newspaper could not find anything else to increase their income only by doing this. :-[

Balderdash!!

Thats true sister,publishing it for THE SECOND time just shows how pathetic theyre

More BALDERDASH!!!!

:salamext:

I was thinking about this all night, and my viewpoint is:

Just ignore.

Finally some WISDOM!!

what annoys me the most is when they say freedom to express what ever we want and then drawing a cartoon thats just childish

That's right. Freedom of expression is not about the quality of that expression it allows for everything from Rembrant paintings to comic books, and yes even insulting cartoons of other people's religion. And it says that if we are insulted we will grant them the freedom to make their comments and then we have the freedom to make ours -- in print, or even protesting in the streets, but NOT with violence!!



This whole ugly thing (and I grant that it is ugly) would never have come up again except that some folks kept stirring the pot with their plans to assassinate the author of the cartoon. That very action made it newsworthy. And any western paper will print what they think is newsworthy even if you and I don't like it. Why? Because they have the freedom to do so. They don't do it just to sell papers. That isn't where they make their money. They make their money from selling ad space in those papers.

And to sell ad space they have to be putting out a paper, so they are always looking for news. Now, when they have a slow newsday, a broken down washing machine can suddenly become "newsworthy", but in general newspapers use the dictum "if it bleeds it leads". So, plots to kill someone (especially when associated with past violence) are going to grab headlines.

If you don't like the beast, I suggest you don't feed the beast. Those who are suggesting violent responses are what I call pot-stirrers. For better or worse, they keep the issue in the news. And I promise you that if you keep stirring the put long enough, just like with a washing machine, everything will come to the top again, and then the pictures will be back in print yet one more time. Of course, you could quite stirring the put, and then they wouldn't be newworthy any more. That's why AhLÄÄM's response is not only a wise one, it is the only one that will accomplish the ends so many claim they desire.

 

[AhlaamBella]

Thats true sister,publishing it for THE SECOND time just shows how pathetic theyre

True. Yet their intentions are clearly to spark some sort of reaction from the muslims. Didn't they see what happened last time? :heated:

 

[Grace Seeker]

True. Yet their intentions are clearly to spark some sort of reaction from the muslims. Didn't they see what happened last time? :heated:

I couldn't disagree more.

There is no advantage to the newspaper to spark anything one way or the other. They simply want to put out the news and sell ad space in their paper. The assassination attempt was news. I agree that they could have simply written an article without reprinting the photos, but from their perspective they have no intent of being bullied into silence if they want to print something. That is what motivates them. They probably could predict that at least some Muslims would be just as incensed this time as the last time, but obviously that is less important to them than exercising their "right" to free press. Now, Muslims can object to the paper's wisdom and lack or sensitivity in how they exercised it, but I think it is hogwash to suggest that they did it with the intent to spark some sort of reaction from Muslims. That just doesn't make any sense from the paper's point of view. As I said, most likely that anticipated it, and (whether folly or not) counted it worth the cost of exercising what they saw as their free speach rights.

 

[AhlaamBella]

I couldn't disagree more.

Why am I not surprised?

There is no advantage to the newspaper to spark anything one way or the other. They simply want to put out the news and sell ad space in their paper. The assassination attempt was news. I agree that they could have simply written an article without reprinting the photos, but from their perspective they have no intent of being bullied into silence if they want to print something.

Yet when a muslim excercises their freedom of speech they are arrested for inciting hatred

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

I couldn't disagree more.

There is no advantage to the newspaper to spark anything one way or the other. They simply want to put out the news and sell ad space in their paper. The assassination attempt was news. I agree that they could have simply written an article without reprinting the photos, but from their perspective they have no intent of being bullied into silence if they want to print something. That is what motivates them. They probably could predict that at least some Muslims would be just as incensed this time as the last time, but obviously that is less important to them than exercising their "right" to free press. Now, Muslims can object to the paper's wisdom and lack or sensitivity in how they exercised it, but I think it is hogwash to suggest that they did it with the intent to spark some sort of reaction from Muslims. That just doesn't make any sense from the paper's point of view. As I said, most likely that anticipated it, and (whether folly or not) counted it worth the cost of exercising what they saw as their free speach rights.

If it's freedom of speech, then those that appose it have the right to freedom of expression (by using protests and violence where need be) It's a two way street my dear chap!

 

[Cognescenti]

If it's freedom of speech, then those that appose it have the right to freedom of expression (by using protests and violence where need be) It's a two way street my dear chap!

Are you just sporting with us or do you really not see the difference?

 

[krypton6]

Greetings,


Denmark is run by fascists now? News to me.

Is this really the level of political debate that we've sunk to here on the forum?

In Denmark you have two wings inside the government competing each other, you have the right and the left. While the right wing is the most accepting, respecting and most caring wing, the left wing is the exact opposit, they stand for fascism although they shurely dont want to admit it.
Just around 50% of the danes see the left wing as fascists and extreme nationalists, while the other 50% support the left wing due to their ignorancy about Islam and quite generally hate towards darker skinned.
The current Danish prime minister is supporting an extreme Danish fascist who have found her away into the government, making the prime minister a fascist.

 

[Cognescenti]

...Yet when a muslim excercises their freedom of speech they are arrested for inciting hatred

Where exactly would that be?

It's permissible to say from your soapbox "the kuffar are pigs" (which is a familiar endearing phrase around here).

It's not permissible to say "now, grab these machetes over here and let's us chop up some filthy kuffar" or "hey guys...what say we blow up the Lincoln Tunnel?"

Both are real crowd pleasers, but the second type could get you into some trouble.

Please tell you can discern the difference.

 

[Cognescenti]

In Denmark you have two wings inside the government competing each other, you have the right and the left. While the right wing is the most accepting, respecting and most caring wing, the left wing is the exact opposit, they stand for fascism although they shurely dont want to admit it.
Just around 50% of the danes see the left wing as fascists and extreme nationalists, while the other 50% have voted for the left wing due to their ignorancy about Islam and quite generally hate towards darker skinned.
The current Danish prime minister is supporting an extreme Danish fascist who have found her away into the government, making the prime minister a fascist.

You don't know what the term "fascist" means, do you?

"Left wing fascist"?????:hmm:

I suspect the irony of calling the Danes fascists after what happened to them in WWII is lost on you as well?

 

[krypton6]

By fascist I mean nationalism and racism, forget the rest.

 

[AhlaamBella]

Where exactly would that be?

It's permissible to say from your soapbox "the kuffar are pigs" (which is a familiar endearing phrase around here).

It's not permissible to say "now, grab these machetes over here and let's us chop up some filthy kuffar" or "hey guys...what say we blow up the Lincoln Tunnel?"

Both are real crowd pleasers, but the second type could get you into some trouble.

Please tell you can discern the difference.

A muslim doesn't necessaril have to be as obvious as that. I know of a few cases, which I would mention but don't know if I'm allowed to. They didnt make the press. But for simply speaking as they feel (with no violence mentioned!) but were silnced as it didn't do the government any favours

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Are you just sporting with us or do you really not see the difference?

Devils Advocate

Though you can't tell me delibrately offending a religion by whatever means is acceptable?

 

[Keltoi]

Devils Advocate

Though you can't tell me delibrately offending a religion by whatever means is acceptable?

Acceptable? Yes, because freedom of expression is a right in Denmark. Comic parody is a form of expression, regardless of how distasteful it might be. There are a thousand things found in the media that I personally find distasteful, but I would not alter their freedom to express a distasteful product. That is personal freedom, both the good, the bad, and the ugly. Censoring something because it is offensive opens up a door that can't be closed again....who decides what is offensive?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Why am I not surprised?

Yet when a muslim excercises their freedom of speech they are arrested for inciting hatred

This two is wrong. I am not saying that such travesties of justice should be met with silence. Go in the street and protest them. If you have such protest around here, as long as it is done peacably, I'll join you in the march.

If it's freedom of speech, then those that appose it have the right to freedom of expression (by using protests and violence where need be) It's a two way street my dear chap!

I'm glad you later said you were being a devil's advocate. Violence is the devil's tool, regardless which religion employs it. Remove the violence and I agree with you, it is a two-way street and freedom of expression needs to go both ways.

It's permissible to say from your soapbox "the kuffar are pigs" (which is a familiar endearing phrase around here).

It's not permissible to say "now, grab these machetes over here and let's us chop up some filthy kuffar" or "hey guys...what say we blow up the Lincoln Tunnel?"

Both are real crowd pleasers, but the second type could get you into some trouble.

Please tell you can discern the difference.

Exactly!! The first is free expression. I may or may not agree with it, support it or be offended by it, that isn't relevant. It should be allowed so that the free interchange of ideas (however repugnant) can lead (hopefully) to an constructive and respectful interchange in which we can all learn from one another and grow as both individuals and as a society.

The second takes us down a completely different road; one which we do not want to venture down and need to be stopped before we get started.

Though you can't tell me delibrately offending a religion by whatever means is acceptable?[/B]

Acceptable in the moral sense? No. It is not acceptable and it is right for people to speak against it. But permissible in the legal sense? Yes, it is and should be.

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Acceptable? Yes, because freedom of expression is a right in Denmark. Comic parody is a form of expression, regardless of how distasteful it might be. There are a thousand things found in the media that I personally find distasteful, but I would not alter their freedom to express a distasteful product. That is personal freedom, both the good, the bad, and the ugly. Censoring something because it is offensive opens up a door that can't be closed again....who decides what is offensive?

Religion should be out of bounds! - Nothing else is asked for. :happy: