Turn on thread page Beta

Should anti-Islam cartoons have been published ??? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should "anti-Islam" cartoons have been published ???
    Yes
    116
    58.59%
    No
    82
    41.41%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wonder if Denmark & other European countries were right depecting the picture of Prophet Mohammed ??? Course, I know depecting the picture of Prophet Mohammed in itself is not permitted within Islam & having said that, depecting "blasphamous" cartoon of Prophet Mohammed being portrayed as a terrorist is certainly BEYOND THE PALE.

    Regardless of whatever insensitivity has been shown on the name of so-called "Freedom of Speech", I personally believe that media should have a sense of responsibility & judgement (as the old adage goes "pen mighter than sword") about its coverage & the possibly consequence it could have, by hurting millions around the world.

    Surely the freedom of speech to insult millions around the world clearly makes less sense, I would've thought ^o) Certainly, any sensible soul can conclude that the media are trying MORE to add fuel to fire, than using their right of freedom of speech. Afterall, once the Denmark produced it, it raised many eyebrows, but then as if that wasn't, MANY other countries actually RE-PRODUCED the images, after seeing the reaction from such a cartoon being published in JUST ONE country. :hmmm:

    Hypocritically, the Danish government seems urging Muslims for CALM, but it might just do more good to use their petty political dialogues with the newpaper involved first.

    The newspaper involved may well be exercising their freedom of expression, but I am rather sure that the editors knew that this would raise eyebrows. Common sense should prevail. If he/she hasn't got any common sense, they he shouldn't have been an editor in first place, since such a role comes with certain amount of responsibility, which he showed he completely lacked :rolleyes:

    Surely, insulting someone's religion, knowing how passionate their followers are towards their religion, isn't quite an effective use of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, I'm afraid especially if such a FREEdom of speech ends-up paying such a HIGH price :rolleyes:

    Do contribute your thoughts.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You talk about how the editors should have had "common sense" - knowing that the cartoons would offend Muslims. Personally I don't see why this should enter into any person's decisions in a secular, enlightened, Western state. As long as they're not breaking the law, newspaper editors really do have the right to print what they want, and whether or not religious people might get offended is, or should be immaterial.

    The reaction from the Muslim world is totally out of proportion and is only making their situation far far worse. How long do they think that the nations of Europe are going to continue to tolerate their mass migration to countries whom many among their number have vowed to destroy?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    You talk about how the editors should have had "common sense" - knowing that the cartoons would offend Muslims. Personally I don't see why this should enter into any person's decisions in a secular, enlightened, Western state. As long as they're not breaking the law, newspaper editors really do have the right to print what they want, and whether or not religious people might get offended is, or should be immaterial.

    The reaction from the Muslim world is totally out of proportion and is only making their situation far far worse. How long do they think that the nations of Europe are going to continue to tolerate their mass migration to countries whom many among their number have vowed to destroy?
    Why is it, wherever I go in this forum, I always see your zealous opinions being displayed like they are totally rational?

    I notice you use ''secular, enlightened western state'' - What UTTER garbage. Can you provide me with clear evidence that we are in a more ''enlightened place because we like to mock other people's beliefs?

    secondly if you believe that sort of thing you should read this:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...=184906&page=2

    (my post)

    you're obviously quite brainwashed to think things like that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    You talk about how the editors should have had "common sense" - knowing that the cartoons would offend Muslims. Personally I don't see why this should enter into any person's decisions in a secular, enlightened, Western state.
    Secular, yes. Enlightened?

    As long as they're not breaking the law, newspaper editors really do have the right to print what they want, and whether or not religious people might get offended is, or should be immaterial.
    They should have a right to print what they like within the boundaries of the law, that doesnt mean there will be no impact on what they print. The Guardian and Independent are free to print what they like, but have a small market share because most people dont like reading columns by terrorist apologisers.

    The reaction from the Muslim world is totally out of proportion and is only making their situation far far worse. How long do they think that the nations of Europe are going to continue to tolerate their mass migration to countries whom many among their number have vowed to destroy?
    For the foreseeable future. Its the multicultural dream.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    On the one hand we have the vital principal of free speech, essential to the free and frank exchange of views vital to a free society. On the other hand, we have the right of people not to have their most basic beliefs arbitrarily insulted under the guise of free speech.
    Those are the official versions on each side.
    Equally: On the one hand we have people being gratuitously offensive and then whining about principals when their remarks provoke a response. On the other hand, we have people whipping up hysteria over a set of vulgar and ignorant third-rate cartoons which would have quickly vanished if they were ignored although- or because- they have much more serious things to concern them.
    That's the way each side sees the other.

    I was talking to a friend last night when he said that if you hear someone say "It's a matter of principal." either go away as fast as you can or do whatever thye want. People say "It's a matter of principal." when they actually mean it doesn't actually matter a damn in itself, but they're going to behave as though it does so that they feel good and decent and moral about it and feel that their opponents are enemies of everthing that is good and decent and moral. And once they start feeling good and decent and moral they will quite happily defend their principals no matter what harm it does to anyone including themselves because of the warm and happy glow of self-righteousness in their souls.

    There are other principals even more important than free speech, because the importance of free speech derives from them, the principals of commonsense and humanity. Now that everyone has shown how thoroughly principled they are and explained how vital it is that everyone acknowledges and obeys their principals, and everyone has boycotted/protested/abused/apologised for/reprinted or whatever else they are going to do; for god's sake, could everyone just sit down and get on with something that matters in itself?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Free speech is important because otherwise it succumbs to state orthodoxy. In other words, we would only be able to have views that were in the confines of a scale drawn up by the government.

    According to Mill (very crudely). We cannot be so arrogent as to think we are so right about EVERYTHING that we can trample on free speech - especially since the only way truth can emerge is through argument.

    Do you really trust the government enough to have them use 'common sense' in this realm? ...and what is 'common sense' anyway? Is it simply the view of the majority? ... because if it was women would have been done for in the 1930's, homosexuals would have been done for in the 1960's etc...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)

    Do you really trust the government enough to have them use 'common sense' in this realm? ...and what is 'common sense' anyway? Is it simply the view of the majority? ... because if it was women would have been done for in the 1930's, homosexuals would have been done for in the 1960's etc...

    If you are going to start using those older examples, then the alternative argument is: Hitler used free speech, and it wasnt the common sense majority view, but with a little help from brainwashing and false perceptions it did become.

    With every right comes a responsiblity to use it wisely. The problem is, most people know they are being derogatory, I dont see how those that made it could think it was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gideon2000uk)
    Do you really trust the government enough to have them use 'common sense' in this realm? ...and what is 'common sense' anyway? Is it simply the view of the majority? ... because if it was women would have been done for in the 1930's, homosexuals would have been done for in the 1960's etc...
    Who said anything about the government?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Who said anything about the government?
    Who else can decide 'common sense' and put it into law?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    You talk about how the editors should have had "common sense" - knowing that the cartoons would offend Muslims. Personally I don't see why this should enter into any person's decisions in a secular, enlightened, Western state. As long as they're not breaking the law, newspaper editors really do have the right to print what they want, and whether or not religious people might get offended is, or should be immaterial.

    The reaction from the Muslim world is totally out of proportion and is only making their situation far far worse. How long do they think that the nations of Europe are going to continue to tolerate their mass migration to countries whom many among their number have vowed to destroy?
    oh and what about worldpeace and these stuff,in the first place they knew this would lead to conflicts they are offending a whold nation for god's sake, and what now we should have a good sense of humor and run to the stores to buy they products??!.
    Well to be honest I call this and all of the people who have sent their drowings immoral. instead of start drowing meaningless stuff they should start to focus on other more important things than how to humilate arabs and muslims
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If someone expresses objectionable views you can shun them or ostracise them.

    You can always use your rights to freedom of expression to discredit and invalidate their views.

    I think Muslims are being too oversensitive, in this instance.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by zooropa)

    I think Muslims are being too oversensitive, in this instance.
    As a nation of animal lovers, would we be oversensitive if we were outraged by a cartoon that portrayed a John Bull character making veiled threats to an immigrant, saying "You can f**k my wife, but don't kick my dog?"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I must say, I am gobsmacked that so many people have voted 'no'.

    It is a religion for heavens sake, you should be able to mock it as much as you see fit, even the Christians agree with me on this one.
    Perhaps Islam is just not compatible with Western values then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    As a nation of animal lovers, would we be oversensitive if we were outraged by a cartoon that portrayed a John Bull character making veiled threats to an immigrant, saying "You can f**k my wife, but don't kick my dog?"
    Yes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zooropa)
    I think Muslims are being too oversensitive, in this instance.
    Indeed, they are taking the piss to be quite honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TKR)
    You talk about how the editors should have had "common sense" - knowing that the cartoons would offend Muslims. Personally I don't see why this should enter into any person's decisions in a secular, enlightened, Western state. As long as they're not breaking the law, newspaper editors really do have the right to print what they want, and whether or not religious people might get offended is, or should be immaterial.

    The reaction from the Muslim world is totally out of proportion and is only making their situation far far worse. How long do they think that the nations of Europe are going to continue to tolerate their mass migration to countries whom many among their number have vowed to destroy?
    right so when i become the editor of the daily mail, i'll make sure i print pictures of Hitler gassing the Jews and being given the thumbs up by everybody. just because it is my right to do so in a secular western state:rolleyes: somehow i dont see this happening anytime soon and i doubt other newspapers would republish this. maybe as a stand, this is exactly what a WESTERN newspaper shoul do:rolleyes: then Muslims would be more inclined to believe they are not once again being picked on by the west.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    I must say, I am gobsmacked that so many people have voted 'no'.

    It is a religion for heavens sake, you should be able to mock it as much as you see fit, even the Christians agree with me on this one.
    Perhaps Islam is just not compatible with Western values then?

    right, i agree with you. lets all mock the jews, the stingy ****ing *****. i somehow dont see this as being accptable:rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teehar)
    right so when i become the editor of the daily mail, i'll make sure i print pictures of Hitler gassing the Jews and being given the thumbs up by everybody. just because it is my right to do so in a secular western state
    Oh dear, you're another one of those idiots who considers religion on a par with race/ethnicity then?

    Don't worry TKR, you'll get no sense out of a socialist I assure you.

    somehow i dont see this happening anytime soon and i doubt other newspapers would republish this. maybe as a stand, this is exactly what a WESTERN newspaper shoul do:rolleyes: then Muslims would be more inclined to believe they are not once again being picked on by the west.
    Why shouldn't Islam be criticised in the West? It is a viscious religion, and it causes misery on a mass scale. It is a disgusting doctrine to follow, and it discriminates on far more levels than this article does. It is sexist, homophobic, anti-wetern, the list goes on.

    If we can't criticise and mock such a religion then we're in a sad state of affairs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They are reacting in the worst possible way IMO.You know,reacting violently to a cartoon depicting Mohammed as a bombing and thus suggesting that Muslims are terrorists and then going on to set fire to flags and threatening Danish embassies and so on is NOT making them look very good.

    As I saw on The Wright Stuff this morning,the best way for them to react would have been to remain calm and say 'Look,we found this offensive,please don't do it again.'

    Violence solves nothing and certainly causes even more problems(could there be even more racism towards Asians in this country now?)..

    I think that there was nothing wrong with Denmak publishing the cartoons as they are not a Muslim country and are not governed by Muslim law BUT in retrospect it probably wasn't the wisest of decisions if it has caused this much outrage.

    The thing that annoys me the most is that Muslims go on about respect and accommodating their religion in Western countries but if I,a Christian went to a Muslim country I would be made to cover up and to act as a Muslim would and I would be prohibited from practising my religion.Yet they expect Western countries to accommodate their needs and change their ways to suit them.

    And as was said on the ITV news,yes,those cartoons were offensive,but isn't celebrating the September 11th atrocity 100 times worse?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beekeeper)
    Why shouldn't Islam be criticised in the West? It is a viscious religion, and it causes misery on a mass scale. It is a disgusting doctrine to follow, and it discriminates on far more levels than this article does. It is sexist, homophobic, anti-wetern, the list goes on.

    If we can't criticise and mock such a religion then we're in a sad state of affairs.

    it isn't sexist, and nowhere in the Quran does it say "be anti western". it is as homophobic as all the other major religions. the list does not go on. like all scriptures Islam is open to interpretation, that is why you get freaks who claim to act in the name of Islam when commiting atrocious acts. the only difference is, nobody is sad enough to sit down and read the new testament or the torah and think of how it can be amnipulated to turn christianity and judaism into horrific religions. at the end of the day if you are against the whole concept of faith, then i respect this, even if you are anti Islam, i respect your right to do so, but please do not make judgements based upon ill informed information. if you feel that you cannot be bothered to read the Quran and truly understand its meaning, then fine, do not do so, but then please do not comment on its content.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

965

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.