Andrew Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 Free speech cartoon :)http://cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images4/sack.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veK Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 that#s a good one :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Been watching this for a while to see how the argument would turn out. I think it's interesting how a lot of people are blaming the original Danish sources for starting this whole mess while at the same time condemning those who are being violent in response. I don't think the original sources knew quite what they were doing when they published those cartoons, and I certainly think that they (and most of the Western world) underestimated just how great an insult this would be. If they thought it would be taken as an insult at all. But I'm not here to defend anyone. Personally I think that freedom of speech will occasionally lead to something that people will disagree with, and that this is an acceptable situation. Someone is insulted by something that someone else said? Woohoo, I don't care. And while non-violent protest would be ideal, I don't particularly care about violence either. So long as this whole mess remains safely outside my concerns, I see no reason to get involved. I think it was someone on these forums who said (and I'm paraphrasing): 'You are entitled to your beliefs and I respect them, but when your beliefs threaten my security or that of those I care about then they can no longer be tolerated.'Freedom of speech is a double edged sword. I don't like everything that's published, especially not that which I find personally insulting. But you don't see me burning embassies. I don't even write letters to the editor... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 NOw I'm not an expert in the politics of editorial cartoons, but aren't they meant to stir the public up a bit? Cause some debate? Some protest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stefanhendriks Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Though i am damn tired, i always thought religion and laws where seperated in our western countries. The collision will probably occur there. Yet I find it unacceptable that other countries demand what the Danish should do. Like i would not accept it if my neighbour would ask me to change the color of my house, because he might find it offending due his beliefs. Or, to be more concrete, a jehova asking me to remove my t.v. because due their religion its unacceptable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 Hmm. I guess they are misunderstood. My bad.and that took place in Londonbehead those that oppress women! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stefanhendriks Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Yay, here we go to WW3! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Wont be too hard to win this one if we try though.I'm disgusted that people in London were protesting as they did. The police should have sorted them out, with force, to put across a clear message to them, that its our country, our rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stefanhendriks Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I am not so sure about wining the war... since most of the countries we would be up against have oil.. and you need oil for everything these days... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Eh, if worst comes to worst we can just utterly destroy stuff. It's much easier when you don't have to worry about civilian casualties. Not that this is what I'd prefer, but if the situation gets bad enough then I don't have too many qualms about anihilating those who threaten my security. Having said that, the time has not come yet. I'm not sure about Dunenewt's forceful police argument, but I do agree with the ending sentiment. This is our country (theirs as well in most cases), and despite the pomp and circumstance that surrounds our constitutional monarchy, it is a secular one. You live here, there are some things that you are going to have to accept. One of them is that religion is no longer ruling the roost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Haven't you heard the latest news Stefan, Canada now has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, so add that to the North Sea reserves and Alaskan ones and we should have enough, eventually, until we use alternative fuels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted February 12, 2006 Author Share Posted February 12, 2006 Can't wait for the USA to claim that Canada has WMD so they can invade us.Ya, we do have lots of oil $.If the middle east were to cut off oil, all Western nations would have to do is stop relying on driving their SUV to work in the city and take public transit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordmaster_Duncan Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 Can't wait for the USA to claim that Canada has WMD so they can invade us.Ya, we do have lots of oil $.Reminds me of fallout, let me see if I can find the referance from the The Fallout Bible...2066 - Winter ---In the winter of 2066, China invades Alaska. The Anchorage Front Line becomes a true battleground.As a sign of increasing tension between the two countries, Canada proves reluctant to allow American troops on Canadian soil or allow American planes to fly over Canadian airspace. The United States and Canadian tensions rise, but Canada eventually backs down, and US troops pass through Canada. This sets the stage for the Canadian annexation in 2076.2069 --- Canada begins to feel the pressure from the United States military as the US draws upon Canadian resources for the war effort. Vast stretches of timberland are destroyed, and other resources in Canada are stretched to the breaking point. Many Americans refer to Canada as Little America, and Canadian protests are unheard.2072 --- The United States' increasing demand for Canadian resources causes protests and riots in several Canadian cities. An attempted sabotage attempt of the Alaskan pipeline is all the military needs as an excuse to begin its annexation of Canada... which in fact, had already begun in 2067.2076 ---January The United States annexation of Canada is complete. Canadian protestors and rioters are shot on sight, and the Alaskan Pipeline swarms with American military units. Pictures of atrocities make their way to the United States, causing further unrest and protests.I think it's said that China invade Alaska for their oil (That's why there IS the fallout, America and China are at war as a result from China's invation, which is a relult of bad diplomacy from the US, which is ...), and then America take over Canada while they're defending Alaska. So you'd better watch out Canada... (they use sabotage as an excuse, not WMD's either) :PAhh, I love Fallout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner154 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I'll join the fray by making a 'stupid' post (as Kiyouta puts it). There are many ways to argue to prove that the cartoonist is right/wrong. But protesting against him is where it's definitely wrong. We cannot say for sure that the radical muslims who protest are protesting against American Colonisation, but what we know for sure is whatever the protesters have been protesting about as has been shown in the picture posted by Andrew.And after all...Freedom of speech is a double edged sword. I don't like everything that's published, especially not that which I find personally insulting. But you don't see me burning embassies. I don't even write letters to the editor...I couldn't have agreed more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Hang on a minute. The offended parties have just as much right to protest as the JP had right to publish. I agree, the placards advocating beheading should have been confiscated by police, (and the arson... it goes without saying) but there's nothing wrong with the many peaceful protesters who turned out to demonstrate their concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner154 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Actually I'm not too sure about this issue. They definitely don't have the right to burn stuff down and behead people. Protesting to have it done could lead to it being done, and thus is wrong too. But what about protesting simply to show disapproval of the cartoons? Why not just reply with a cartoon of their own? It's not like if they didn't protest, someone is really going to be marginalised. And let's not even talk about Muhammad being marginalised who then decides to condemn the cartoonist - that's a non-issue, even if it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Leaf Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Actually I'm not too sure about this issue. They definitely don't have the right to burn stuff down and behead people. Protesting to have it done could lead to it being done, and thus is wrong too. But what about protesting simply to show disapproval of the cartoons? Why not just reply with a cartoon of their own? It's not like if they didn't protest, someone is really going to be marginalised. And let's not even talk about Muhammad being marginalised who then decides to condemn the cartoonist - that's a non-issue, even if it happens.Like Nema stated, they do have the right to protest although I still think it's ridiculous. I'm not sure of my sources, but I heard that several Middle-Eastern newspapers have started a cartoon contest. I'm not sure though.And people - Fallout is always right. The USA even tried to develope a medicine very similiar to RadAway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordmaster_Duncan Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Like Nema stated, they do have the right to protest although I still think it's ridiculous. I'm not sure of my sources, but I heard that several Middle-Eastern newspapers have started a cartoon contest. I'm not sure though.And people - Fallout is always right. The USA even tried to develope a medicine very similiar to RadAway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Something else just occured to me. That muslim protesters could actually go out and congregate in public carrying signs like that while shouting anti-establishment slogans and threatening others, surely shows great confidence in the free speech rules of Britain. That they can say what they want without fear of violent response, or too much reactionary discrimination by the ruling body. This is interesting firstly because they are making use of the very same western free speech laws that justified the publishing of the cartoons. Were these laws not in place, the protests might well have been illegal and turned violent. Not only is this quite ironic, but it also shows some level of hypocritical behaviour. "Europe, you will pay! Yes I live and work here, your point is? Yes the quality of life in generally much better here, so? Yes I know there aren't any insane dictators here, just boring old men, what of it?" etc. It is also interesting that it should be in Britain that people carry signs that read 'Behead those who insult Islam.' I wonder what would happen if the same kind of thing were to happen in Washington DC? Or New York? Or if it were Christians in Iran, Arabs in Israel, Tibetians in China? This country is far from perfect, but I feel a tiny glimmer of patriotism due to these protests. Not because we're inherently superior or anything, but because things like that can happen here. Not to say that they can't happen elsewhere, just that they're less likely to. Jeez, I really have to clarify things. And finally to reiterate: free speech is a double edged sword. If you're going to use it to threaten others, you have to be prepared for it to be used to insult you. Because anything else is not free speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryphon Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 "they have the right to protest"Don't forget those rights have been set by us. The Western World. Not by them. It's again forcing our rules and our police upon them. It's not as easy as you think putting yourself in some one selses shoes.And they did open a cartoon contest of their own. Asking for cartoons about the second World War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Giving someone the right to protest is not the same as forcing them to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Last night on the news it was about how the professor who the protestors at a university were protesting against, he actually joined the protest himself and said slogans against himself. It was funny. And then a Muslim woman/student went on saying that Islam is a religion of peace and that the cartoon makes them look like terrosists, and I literally laughed out loud.If Muslims want to change the perception that other have of them, they should start with the problem, which is extreme Muslim people (ie terrorists, or those advocating violence, which seems to be a lot of them), and not start bashing cartoonists who do not agree with their religion. If all the terrorists stopped, and someone made a cartoon about Islam = terrorism, then Muslims should be able to laugh at the cartoon as it is not true and stupid. But the Muslims are offended by it as it is true, and instead of attacking the terrorists that make them look bad, they attack the cartoonist. I mean the picture with the sign saying behead those that insult Islam, the other protestors should have taken that sign down, but they didn't, so they must all agree with that and advocate violence which is against their religion make makes my HEAD EXPLODE.I remember when Bush visted Halifax a couple years ago, some protesters wanted to burn the American flag, but other protestors stopped them from doing so because it would make the protestors and Canada look bad.They did make a cartoon with Anne Frank sleeping with Hitler.BTW I'm lurking as I'm at home home and slow connection/computer. should be back tuesday night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gryphon Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Giving someone the right to protest is not the same as forcing them to do so.I just ment to say that no Western country can reflect it's policy, ideas of freedom or rights upon other cultures and just think we are acting "ok".They do not have to listen to any of our believes or ideas. That's the whole idea of different countries, religions, laws.@Andrew.true that if they take the cartoons where their prophet is a terrorist are insulting, a video with a man shouting "Allah is great" before killing a person should be horrible to and they should protest against that with the same efforts as they are against those cartoons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Oh I don't think think that the western world acts ok. Just that if one is prepared to exploit rules, any rules, then one should be prepared for others to exploit them as well. If the right to publish potentially insulting cartoons is removed, then that erodes the right to protest peacefully as well. I make no claims to fairness, just to sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Western Standard and Jewish free Press in Alberta printed the cartoon. Now the Muslims are going to sue... gonna try hate crimes as well (hate crime = thought police).http://www.cbc.ca/calgary/story/20060213-cartoons.htmlMost media in Canada and the United States have refused to publish the cartoons. But Levant dismissed the notion that the decision is based on respect for Islam, saying the real reason is fear.I would have to agree with his explanation. Print the cartoons? Get death threats (from the "religion of peace" of course).UPEI is still making the news :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.