Has this goon seen the light?

[Fungus]

There is a huge difference between cartoons drawn to bring attention to the so called "plight" of the cartoonists too scared to work and rubbish posted with the sole intention of denying the hollocaust ever happened.

I know, this seems to be a concept people like sasguru have very real difficulties in understanding

Mailman

I don't understand what you are talking about regarding the cartoons. They were blasphemous. So what. You seem to not understand what free speech means.

What's wrong with denying that the Holocaust happened? Yes it's offensive to many, especially Jews. Yes it's based on bad history. Yes it's just plain wrong. No it should not be banned. Or should we ban people from extolling creationism? Or anything else we do not like?

[zathras]

I don't understand what you are talking about regarding the cartoons. They were blasphemous.

Twaddle! No they were not. No more than cartoons of the Jewish/Christian God is, or for that matter a certain musical called 'Jerry Springer'.

This whole row was whipped up by certain sects in the Islamic world, most, if not all want to promote political change in Western Liberal democracies and we are helping by kowtowing to this rubbish.

There is nothing in Islamic texts which says that drawing Mohammed is not allowed. Nearest thing is that Islam adopts the same set of rules brought down off a mountain by Moses. One of those does have a rule about Idolotory - or the worship of an idol. Which is the rule that is being deliberatly mis-interpreted by certain people seeking political change. Which incidentally is as good a reason as you can hope for secular governments (and the religous freedom to belief whatever you want, allowing others to do the same).

[sasguru]

There is a huge difference between cartoons drawn to bring attention to the so called "plight" of the cartoonists too scared to work and rubbish posted with the sole intention of denying the hollocaust ever happened.

I know, this seems to be a concept people like sasguru have very real difficulties in understanding

Mailman

Let me try and put it into terms that even a simpleton would understand.
Free speech means just what it says. True or false, whether we like it or not, whteher it offends people or not IS IRRELEVANT.
Fungus' point is well taken. It's better that crap ideas are aired in the open light of day than forced to go underground.

[threaded]

The big difference between those cartoons and the kind of rubbish Irving spouts is that the cartoons are quite entertaining, and without a doubt have absolutely proved their point whereas Irving is just so much opinion which he himself has changed.

So on one side we have: fun, fun, fun and on the other dull, erm what was that again?

The other thought is on the basis of cost. An embassy cost quite a bit to run, what with all them parties and jollies, wherein the cartoons have caused a few to be closed, so I'm looking forward to a tax cut next year. Whereas Irving has just given an excuse for a bunch of legal types to waste oxygen and earn huge fees.

So the cartoons save money and Irving wastes it.

[Joe Black]

Let me try and put it into terms that even a simpleton would understand.
Free speech means just what it says. True or false, whether we like it or not, whteher it offends people or not IS IRRELEVANT.
Fungus' point is well taken. It's better that crap ideas are aired in the open light of day than forced to go underground.

I think I'd generally go with sasguru on this one. Free speech should mean what it says, whether it's someone publishing cartoons or someone saying "I don't give a damn if Hitler killed x million, he was still a decent guy who loved his dog".

Whether sensitivities should be taken into account or likewise people should be prosecuted for incitement. e.g. "kill all the muslims/jew/christians", or whether people who distort history/science etc. for some malicious benefit should be allowed to publish/teach others is another question.

Personally I think the libel case which he was involved in is a better example of justice than this one...

[Fungus]

I think I'd generally go with sasguru on this one. Free speech should mean what it says, whether it's someone publishing cartoons or someone saying "I don't give a damn if Hitler killed x million, he was still a decent guy who loved his dog".

Whether sensitivities should be taken into account or likewise people should be prosecuted for incitement. e.g. "kill all the muslims/jew/christians", or whether people who distort history/science etc. for some malicious benefit should be allowed to publish/teach others is another question.

Personally I think the libel case which he was involved in is a better example of justice than this one...

Exactly. It was right that he lost the libel case as he is an anti-semite.

We've said all this before, but the cartoons were offensive to some, but hell, Jerry Springer was offensive to Christians, and I don't remember Christians throwing their toys out of the pram.

The problem is that people are now frightened to say anything funny about Islam and Muslims for fear that it will lead to a small economy and several embassies going under. So how is that for free speech? Instead we will have people muttering "Bleedin' Islam" under their breath, or in anonymous forum posts. Surely not?

About the only comedian who tackles Islam is the great Andy Hamilton. In one R4 program he played the Devil pretending to be an Imam to wind up Muslims, quoting lines from the Koran such as "Blessed are Americans, for they mean well".

Anyway, Irving has got 3 years, which is ridiculous. IMO

[Fungus]

Twaddle! No they were not. No more than cartoons of the Jewish/Christian God is, or for that matter a certain musical called 'Jerry Springer'.

For Christs sake, yes they were blasphemous, in the opinion of many. Are you stupid? And yes in the past there have been images of Mohammed in print. Isn't saying "Oh God" blasphemy?

Fungus

[John Galt]

Stone 'im! Stone 'im!

Ok, who wants to buy some gravel?

I'll have two with points, a big flat one and a packet of gravel

[zathras]

For Christs sake, yes they were blasphemous, in the opinion of many. Are you stupid? And yes in the past there have been images of Mohammed in print. Isn't saying "Oh God" blasphemy?

Fungus

No they were not. Read the relevent texts.

1. According to Islam Allah (note: Allah, not the prophet Mohammed) is so great and magnificent that it is not possible to create an image or likeness of him on earth. Some Islamic sects have stretched this to include Mohammed but note nothing in the Koran actually says that of Mohammed. Nor do other books detailing the rules of Islam. It's stretched to breaking point by saying any attempt to portray both Allah and Mohammed is an insult and therefore Blasphemy.

2. Exodus 20. (From the First Testament of the Bible). When Moses brought down the stone tablets containing the 10 Commandments. Islam accepts the same 10 commandments. That includes the one about Idolatory - the worship of an idol rather than what it portrays. Again some sects in Islam have chosen to say that in creating an image of Mohammed this leads to idolatory.

Now the complaint over the cartoons was that they are an image of Mohammed and therefore blasphemy. Not that they were cartoons, that they were an image.

Now most if not all the organisations extolling this line are on the extreme edges of Islam. That is organisations such as Hamas. The same organisations that say it is perfectly within the rules for someone to commit suicide and kill women and children going about their daily business. That itself an extention of the tenent in Mulim teachings to defend Islam. It's extended by saying that those western democracies who attack Islam are acting under the instruction of the voters and therefore those voters are valid combatants and can be murdered.

There are nearly 1 billion Muslims in this world and a very small minority share this view and many are disillusioned over the policies of the west but don't think for any moment that they are after anything more than changing Western Liberal democracies including but not limited to the introduction of Sharia Law.

By the way your post is blasphemy and unlike the Muslim tenents under discussion saying 'Oh Christ!' is blasphemy in all Christian sects

[Mailman]

Z,

I thought you would have realised that well reasoned discussion has no place on these forums!

Good posts by the way.

Mailman