Mohammed Cartoons controversey

[Entsuropi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Several months ago a Danish newspaper published some satirical cartoons of Mohammed. This was in response to the fact that a picture book author was unable to get cartoonists to draw Mohammed for her book. In Islam, depictions of Mohammed are banned in order to prevent him becoming a false idol.

This has resulted in a huge international melee, with the Islamic world (11 countries, including most of the middle east and Pakistan) calling for the governments of Denmark and Norway (a Norweigan paper re-printed the cartoons soon after they first appeared in the Danish paper). Several cartoonists have gone into hiding. The newspaper has had to beef up security among death threats. The governments of both countries have said, effectively, 'sorry your offended' but refuse to take concrete action on the grounds of freedom of speech and the fact that they don't control the press. Denmark has a large muslim minority, and has had considerable tensions even before the newspaper cartoons between the main white population and the muslim community, who generally live in their own districts.

The EU has had a foreign minister meeting, and has declared that the governments of Denmark and Norway has the full support of the EU, does not accept that the newspaper should be prosecuted, and that the boycots of Danish and Norweigan produce in Saudi Arabia and other places is unacceptable and will, if the EU thinks the governments of those countries are involved, be brought before the WTO. However other EU officials have started saying that it was bad for the newspaper to publish them.   It's kind of mixed atm in terms of how the EU is responding.

Basically, it's all a giant furball D: It's interesting to see Europe and the muslim world go toe to toe. It's high time the muslim countries stopped trying to impose religious ideals on post-enlightenment Europe and learned what seperation of state and church actually means.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

On the one hand, it was pretty tacky of the newspaper to print the images. Arguing against that is a bit foolish.

On the other, hello, not a country run by Islamists! A country that supports freedom of the press! I may not think what they said was good and decent, but they had a right to say it.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

That's rather funny knowing that the Catholic/Christian God is constantly being charicatured by cartoons like Family Guy and the Simpsons.

[Entsuropi]

It all seems so ironic - the newspaper publishes the cartoons as a result of people being afraid to draw mohammed, and the results cause the editor to say 'I wouldn't have published them If I knew the results', and 'I do not think anyone will publish pictures of Mohammed again in my generation'.

[42]

Freedom of Speech comes with Freedom to Face the Consequences.

Course, death threats are a little too much.

[The Lost One]

Freedom of speech/expression should also be used with discretion. Just because some can say something doesn't mean they should. I'm sure that the newspaper is learning their lesson.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I do have to observe, however, that this is an interesting response. According to most sources (granted, they're all western, so they could be entirely wrong) the most offensive image is the one with MOhammed with a bomb in his turban, because it associates Islam with terrorism. Perhaps a better way to remove that association would be for the Muslim world to stop giving death threats and celebrating when acts of terrorism are carried out.

No, not all Muslims do this. Maybe not even a majority. But while there are a few voices (primarily western Muslims) in Islam decrying terrorism using Islam to justify itself, there are celebrations throughout the middle east when the WTC goes down. There are riots and violence throughout all of Asia when someone decides to print a picture. Really, which is doing more to create the association? Seems like there's a better place to focus energies than on a newspaper in a small country.

Again, I do have to underline that this observation was made using western (probably non-Muslim) interpretations of what's stoking the fires in the images. I reckon that there are more reasons than the terrorist association that is making people so mad.

And that editor is retarded for thinking that there would have been any other reaction to printing this. Why the heck did he think people wouldn't illustrate the book in the first place? Seriously, what is this guy doing thinking he can be a good judge of what information to dispense and how.

[Sigyn]

I think the newspaper was wrong. They took something important to a large group of people and mocked it. I think the newspaper should have had more respect. To me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press but of mocking others' values that they don't agree with.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

That's not what the article was about at all. They printed a selection of cartoon drawings from their staff artists, a couple of which were even complimentary, or at least benign. It wasn't about saying that Muslims or dumb or that Mohammed was a jerk. It was an article ABOUT freedom of the press. SO yeah, like I said, it was a tacky way to go about it, but I think discounting it being an issue of freedom of speach is ignoring both the context and the issues.

[Shrain]

And that editor is retarded for thinking that there would have been any other reaction to printing this.

LOL. I'll say!

It definitely wasn't a "safe" topic to use as a means of exploring free speech. Of course, freedom of speech is primarily about having the ability to present dissenting viewpoints, thus it wouldn't make sense to choose a really "accepted" idea to talk about, I suppose. STILL, the editor is a dodo.

[Entsuropi]

Since when are newspaper editors expected to just do the safe things? I thought many of the most respected journalists were those who pushed the boundaries and did what people were scared to do (ie, warzone reporting is one).

[Fellfrosch]

I'm with Entropy on this. The rebel journalist in me says that "they don't want me to do this, so I will" is kind of a cool reason to print something.

[MsFish]

Who cares if the editor was an idiot?  Unfavorable cartoons are printed about all sorts of groups all the time.  It doesn't matter whether or not printing the cartoons was right or wrong, death threats and financial retribution are even more wrong.  And last I checked getting vengeance on something that was wrong by doing something even more wrong wasn't an acceptable course of action.  

[CtrlZed]

The thing I find ironic is that they take offense at a cartoon commenting on violence by issuing death threats and pleas to behead the cartoonist.  It's like saying, "Stop saying we're violent or we'll kill you!"

[Shrain]

haha. Too true, too true.

And I only echoed e's comment about the editor's mental capacity b/c the guy seemed so surprised that the cartoons would create a ruckus.