Cartoons and religion

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

...and I hate to think what the religeous fascists will want censored next.

Probably what you've just said.


.

[Biker Biggles]

I'll get Jack Straw and Tony Blair to say sorry on my behalf before I upset some fanatical loony.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Dunno about you peeps but I am outraged by what's going on.Liberal Democracy, which is what we aspire to in the West,is founded on the principle of free speach.Anyone who seeks to curtail that freedom is attacking the core of our society and should be treated accordingly.Worse still,as we must expect these attacks from our enemies,is the response of our leaders,who are queing up to grovel to our attackers and appease them.There's a lesson from history that's been missed here,and I hate to think what the religeous fascists will want censored next.

So is it okay to encourage people to attack people because (say) they are black, disabled, gay etc etc? While I think the principle of free speech is very important surely there have to be some limits?

My understanding of the cartoon is it presented Mohammed in such a way as to indicate he was responsible for the violence/terrorist acts comitted by some followers of Islam. There are two problems with this - most followers of Islam regard it as highly offensive to present images of Mohammed; secondly, Mohammed was a peaceful leader.

So what's my point? Firstly, it's a pretty cheap shot and secondly it's guaranteed to cause offense. Given that many followers of Islam feel under attack beacuse
of the behaviour of the Bush regime and its supporters which is largely geared to protecting cheap oil and its own power base it is not surprising that their fears can be manipulated by more extreme fundamentalist Muslims which is what has happened here.

I also think there's a large racist element to this; given most Moslems are not white I think many attacks on Islam are in fact attacks on people because they are of a different race.

I don't know in this case whether freedom of speech is the more important principle but I don't think it's as clear cut as many posts on this thread have seemed to indicate.

Originally Posted by Steve W

So is it okay to encourage people to attack people because (say) they are black, disabled, gay etc etc? While I think the principle of free speech is very important surely there have to be some limits?

My understanding of the cartoon is it presented Mohammed in such a way as to indicate he was responsible for the violence/terrorist acts comitted by some followers of Islam. There are two problems with this - most followers of Islam regard it as highly offensive to present images of Mohammed; secondly, Mohammed was a peaceful leader.

So what's my point? Firstly, it's a pretty cheap shot and secondly it's guaranteed to cause offense. Given that many followers of Islam feel under attack beacuse
of the behaviour of the Bush regime and its supporters which is largely geared to protecting cheap oil and its own power base it is not surprising that their fears can be manipulated by more extreme fundamentalist Muslims which is what has happened here.

I also think there's a large racist element to this; given most Moslems are not white I think many attacks on Islam are in fact attacks on people because they are of a different race.

I don't know in this case whether freedom of speech is the more important principle but I don't think it's as clear cut as many posts on this thread have seemed to indicate.

... but when you exclude certain topics from being mocked due to potential offense, then when does it stop? What's wrong with turning the other cheek and ignoring what you don't like?

People apologising for offence caused is fine if they wish to do so but nobody should be forced to apologise. Who's going to apologise to the Danes for the burnt flags? Or the jews for the mocking they receive from the Muslims?

Originally Posted by Steve W

So is it okay to encourage people to attack people because (say) they are black, disabled, gay etc etc?

No, obviously not.

While I think the principle of free speech is very important surely there have to be some limits?

Well with respect, if you feel there have to be some limits then you don't agree with the actual principle of free speech.

I also think there's a large racist element to this; given most Moslems are not white I think many attacks on Islam are in fact attacks on people because they are of a different race.

In general I'd have to say that that's complete and utter ********.



.

[Biker Biggles]

To me this is an issue of principle and I stand by what I wrote.To put it another way----I disagree with what you say,but I defend your right to say it.
As for attacking blacks,gays,the disabled or anyone else,that is,rightly,illegal.Those who do such things should feel the full force of the law,but they should not be able to palm off their responsibility for their actions by claiming that someone else encouraged them.We need to reinvent the concept of taking responsibility for our actions if freedom of speach and expression is to survive.

[quote="jonboy"]

Originally Posted by Steve W

So is it okay to encourage people to attack people because (say) they are black, disabled, gay etc etc?

No, obviously not.

While I think the principle of free speech is very important surely there have to be some limits?

Well with respect, if you feel there have to be some limits then you don't agree with the actual principle of free speech.

Thera re legal limits you cannot encourge people to attcak people of another race - it's ilegal!

I also think there's a large racist element to this; given most Moslems are not white I think many attacks on Islam are in fact attacks on people because they are of a different race.

In general I'd have to say that that's complete and utter ********.

Why do you say that? I like a rational argument not gratuitous abuse

I work in Leeds; since 7/7/05 the number of people living on Council estates - where most people are white- who have been attacked purely because they are obviously not indigenous to Leeds has increased considerably as has racist graffiti. Most of those attacked are from the newly acceded states in the EU - some of them are Moslem, some of them are not but they are being attacked because they are not white. The thugs who are doing this however think anyone who is not white nor Afro Carribean is a Moslem and therefore can be attacked and the way they (wrongly) distinguish them is by race.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Thera re legal limits you cannot encourge people to attcak people of another race - it's ilegal!

Freedom of speech has no limits, otherwise it wouldn't be free.

Why do you say that? I like a rational argument not gratuitous abuse

Well I was using it as a vehicle to demonstrate that although some people might not like what I say, I am at least entitled to say it - so it wasn't gratuitous it honestly had a point .

I work in Leeds; since 7/7/05 the number of people living on Council estates - where most people are white- who have been attacked purely because they are obviously not indigenous to Leeds has increased considerably as has racist graffiti. Most of those attacked are from the newly acceded states in the EU - some of them are Moslem, some of them are not but they are being attacked because they are not white. The thugs who are doing this however think anyone who is not white nor Afro Carribean is a Moslem and therefore can be attacked and the way they (wrongly) distinguish them is by race.

I think you're trying to turn this into a race issue and I don't believe it is one. It's about basic, hard fought and won for, freedoms. Without true and unfettered freedom of speech you have removed the very cornerstone of democracy - do you honestly want that?


.

[Biker Biggles]

If groups of thugs are roaming Leeds (or any) estates attacking people that is an arguement for proper policing and firm application of the law.These thugs must be made to take responsibility for their illegal activities,but it is not an excuse to curtail free expression for the rest of our society.I believe we are at a crossroads where we must decide whether we continue with trying to create a free society or slide back into the kind of authoritarian one we used to have.I prefere the free one,warts and all.

Jonboy,

You are , of course entitled to your point of view but what I was questioning was that saying mine was boll*cks didn't take us much further cos I didn't (and still don't know) why you think this. Surely forums are about exchanging views and giving reasons for those views e.g. I think Harley Davidsons are crap because.... rather than just saying I think Harley Davidsons are crap.

All I was trying to saying was that I think some of the current attacks on Islam and Muslims are racist in nature and I gave you one example of why I believe this to be the case.

My other point was that there are currently limits to free speech in this country e.g. it is illegal to argue that all black people should be set on fire because the law prevents people inciting people to do such acts. You can, of course, say suc things but you risk being sent to prison etc. Are you arguing that this law which makes inciting people to hatred on grounds of people's race should be abolished because it limits freedom of speech?