Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Channel 4 censors image of Muhammad

Scroll to see replies

So your implying he deserves the violence simply for exercising his right of free speech and freedom of expression?

Some open religion you have there I see.

I haven't implied anything. There's two things;

1. Doing an action without knowing the consequences.
2. Doing an action whilst knowing what the consequences are.

The man falls under 2, that's the only point I made.

[QUOTE=ThatPerson;46160710]Blasphemy is a idiotic crime dreamt up by clerics who have nothing better to do. It's a picture. We should not have to pander to a thousand year old belief that stops us drawing a stick figure of a man and calling it "Muhammad".

1. According to your subjective "opinion" it is idiotic - doesn't actually make it idiotic.

2. Dreamt up by clerics? There are Blasphemy laws or "offense laws" that are prelevant in western countries. Who dreamt those up?

[QUOTE=ThatPerson;46160710]It's offensive only because you choose to make it so. The rest of the world and non-religious community, who are in the majority, do not find it offensive.

It's offensive because it is offensive. Just like how whites, blacks, brits, Aussies, Africans etc. would find things offensive.

The issue with this particular case is that there's no civil discussion, no progressive value or anything. The drawing is not to prove a point in "freedom of speech", it's purely to offend masses of people.

Original post by Eva.Gregoria

Both of you are constantly giving Muslims a bad name on this site. I know plenty of good Muslims that are not this violent. Stop spreading your hate.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I honestly don't understand why any Muslim with common sense would want to know you give how much you badmouth Islam. Or maybe it's just another side to you.

Spineless.

Original post by Al-Mudaari

I honestly don't understand why any Muslim with common sense would want to know you give how much you badmouth Islam. Or maybe it's just another side to you.

Am I not allowed to make friends with people who have ideologies I disagree with? At least they themselves don't spread hate and underneath it all, they're still normal, nice people. You on the other hand...

I also have Muslim family on my dad's side so I know many more Muslims than you think.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

ThatPerson

Original post by Al-Mudaari

I haven't implied anything.

Clearly. :rolleyes:

Reply 24

thunder_chunky

Original post by Lady Comstock

http://www.channel4.com/news/muslim-cartoon-jesus-and-mohammed-shafiq-video

Why on earth is a major broadcaster giving succour to the blasphemy rules of a specific religion?

Channel 4 News is known for being the "trendy, liberal" news channel and seems much more willing to cover controversial/offensive things than, say, BBC News. Yet they censor an image of Muhammad? Bizarre.

Would they blur out signs in a report on the Westboro Baptist Church because many of the signs are grossly and directly offensive to gay people?

They wouldn't want to incur the wrath of Jihad Joe and his cohorts.

Reply 25

KimKallstrom

Original post by Little Wolf Taima

Again, does it affect you either way whether you can see a face of an artists interpretation of Mohammad or not. Is it really that important to you 'just because free speech', 'just because liberalism'. Calm down. It is not hurting you physically or emotionally. You getting upset over the censorship is like Muslims getting upset over it not getting censored, only the latter option would needlessly deeply upset and provoke. Youre not blowing things up but it's the same righteous indignation and 'how dare they' response.

I know most Muslim countries don't give a damn about human rights such as freedom of speech but Britain is better than that.

Reply 26

PopaPork

Original post by KimKallstrom

RIP PopaPork.

Nice knowin ya.

LOL I've done worse :wink:

But funny isn't it how posting such a simple image (it's not offensive) can cause such outrage.

But that says more about them than it says about me :biggrin:

Reply 27

caravaggio2

The problem I have with ch 4 is the utter hypocrisy of doing this but condemning people who stand up to "the religion of peace" nick Cohen puts it better than most in this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lffXO_LLWo

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 28

gr8wizard10

Westeners

.

u aggy bruh?

Reply 29

username1258398

I feel sorry for Maajid Nawaz; seems like the one voice of reason in the whole business is being targeted. Jon Snow's absolutely right: let the voters decide! If Muslims are so offended by his actions they can simply vote for someone else. That's democracy - democracy isn't demanding someone resigns from public office in response to him exercising his right to freedom of speech. Again:

Let the ballot box decide!

Reply 30

DaveSmith99

Remember kids, if you want something then guns, violence and death threats are the best way to achieve it.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 31

FiniteMr

Original post by Eva.Gregoria

This.

We don't want to risk some Muslims throwing a tantrum, burning down things and killing people etc because we wanted to prove how liberal we are.

Posted from TSR Mobile

So... terrorists win?

Reply 32

Eva.Gregoria

Original post by SteelScyther

Sooooo, we're letting the terrorists win?

If it means that unnecessary lives aren't lost, then yes.

Reply 33

A Perfect Circle

It's cowardly and promotes other media outlets to act in similar manner.

Original post by Eva.Gregoria

If it means that unnecessary lives aren't lost, then yes.

Reply 34

SteelScyther

Original post by Eva.Gregoria

If it means that unnecessary lives aren't lost, then yes.

That's just ridiculous. Nobody should have to pander to the needs of a particular religion. If it's blasphemy for them, then they don't have to draw pictures of muhammed, but it isn't blasphemy for us so why should we have to stick to their rules?

It is just ridiculous that we can see this situation and think we're the problem, and the problem isn't people willing to riot and kill because of it.

Let me put it to you this way: You see a kid who's getting constantly bullied - his money stolen from him at school, you know, the stereotypical bully thing. He comes to you for advice on what to do; he says if he speaks back to his bully he'll get the snot beaten out of him. Would you tell him to just keep his mouth shut and deal with it, living in fear constantly? Or would you tell him to do something about it?

I know the scenarios are different, because the bully could be reigned in by a teacher whereas extremists can't be reigned in so easily, but I don't think anyone in their right mind would tell this little boy "Oh just go along with it, it's not so bad, you don't need to buy anything anyway so you don't really need that money - it's not worth the fuss to keep it".

Reply 35

DaveSmith99

Original post by Eva.Gregoria

If it means that unnecessary lives aren't lost, then yes.

So everytime someone uses violence as a threat, give into them?

Reply 36

Good bloke

Original post by Al-Mudaari

Dreamt up by clerics? There are Blasphemy laws or "offense laws" that are prelevant in western countries. Who dreamt those up?

All blasphemy laws were originally drawn up at the behest of clerics and their apologists. There are no laws against blasphemy in England and Wales. Nobody has a right not to be offended.

Reply 37

DaveSmith99

Original post by PopaPork

Revolting. It's good to see that Clegg has found his spine and is sticking by him though.

Reply 38

n00

Original post by PopaPork

This TSR mods is why we post picture of old MO. That you support those who would censor and murder those who do and chastise us that dare to stand up to you shows you are on the side of those who would murder people for drawing a cartoon. You should be ashamed that you are enforcing SHARIA on this site

WTF are you talking about? TSR censor all kinds of ****. See!

If some group you didn't like started sending death threats to those posting child porn online would you start posting child porn on TSR?