Hypocrisy of Freedom of Speech

Mughal is got a point.Lets not behave as if the cartoons were simply a freedom of expression blown out of all proportions by the Muslims or the media.It was not.

I edited this comment.


Edited by Mughaal - 11-Mar-2008 at 23:47

Originally posted by Mughaal Even Muslims dont draw Buddha with a bomb on his head. Thanks.

You're right they don't draw Buddha with a bomb on his head, they just blow Buddha up. But I guess that's what passes for tolerance.

Hypocrisy is rampant in all places. Mughaal, get off your high horse. Should the newspaper have published the Christ cartoon? That's up to the newspaper. Should the same newspaper have published the Mohammed cartoon? Again that is up to the newspaper. However if one is published (or not) so should the other one be. What you fail to realize though, is that the two cartoons were separated by three years. At a newspaper or any business much can happen in three years. In three years owners can change, editors can change, general political stances and affiliations can also change. All these things must be taken into account before you endeavor to lambast an entire continent for a cartoon. There is no excuse for threatening harm or actually harming somebody because the drew a picture that you didn't like. There are ways of combatting such cartoons, for instance a Islamic or opposition newspaper could print a cartoon of equal offensiveness (like a Christ cartoon). NEITHER ONE OF THESE CARTOONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, BUT ONE MUST ALSO RESPECT THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH SUCH CARTOONS. Any such imprisonment or harmful action taken against the publishers or cartoonists should not be condoned. It should also be noted that the media have a responsibility to be sensitive to what a given publication can make a specific population do. They, the media, however, are not responsible for the actions of a few bad apples. At some point personal responsibility has to come into the equation. If person A kills person B for making a cartoon that person A finds insulting, then person A should take responsibility for his/her actions and should be punished. The fact of the matter is that cartoons are just cartoons and if you immigrate to a country don't expect that country to tailor its customs to yours. Upon immigration the immigrant has to adopt the hosts customs not visa versa.

You are doing nothing in your posts other than establishing how biased you are. You are in such a rage about this well then I pose this question to you. Would you be this upset about an anti-Semitic cartoon in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, Germany, France, Russia, USA, or Britain? I doubt you would, I could be wrong though.

Akolouthos, that was just an off the cuff brainstorm of one possible way of combatting such offensive cartoons. It might seem infantile but it would allow a greater Islamic community to show a greater Christian community how offensive their (Christian) actions were. Of course there is another way to battle such cartoons and that is denounce them and show that they are greatly exaggerated stereotypes by not harming, rioting, and killing people.

Originally posted by King John Akolouthos, that was just an off the cuff brainstorm of one possible way of combatting such offensive cartoons. It might seem infantile but it would allow a greater Islamic community to show a greater Christian community how offensive their (Christian) actions were. Of course there is another way to battle such cartoons and that is denounce them and show that they are greatly exaggerated stereotypes by not harming, rioting, and killing people.

Edited by Panther - 09-Mar-2008 at 00:52

Originally posted by Heroi Mughal is got a point.Lets not behave as if the cartoons were simply a freedom of expression blown out of all proportions by the Muslims or the media.It was not. It was provocative,and it was insulting to Muslims if they feel that it was. Now someone would say that if they feel insulted by our freedom of expression then thats their problem.Then clearly is the problem of those who exercised such freedom to face the consecuences. Thats were responsibility comes in.   Is media allowed today to make Jews as stereotypes in caricatures?Yes it is.But does it do this over an dover again as a provocation backed up by freedom of expression?No it does not,because it is a matter of responsibility,and a fear of a Backlash.   Lets not have even more insulting or racist examples that media is allowed by law to do,but never does,simply because some issues are sensitive and they provoke backlash.   Actually i would be surprise if this cartoos would be acceptable by most Europian counries Media watch. One such country that i would be surprise to publish such cartoons would be Britain.   Now bottom line is,should the Media have such rights ?I think yes But should it exercise them for means of provocation? I think no.

And thus Heroi understands the issue completely, and has articulate the workable solution. Better be careful Heroi, spend too much time in these threads and you'll start thinking the sky is green and the mountains purple.

Originally posted by Northman The storyline clearly proves, that the cartoons were created and published as a response to selfcensorship, caused by the fear already present in western Europe. A fear induced by Islamic extremists and terrorists. They did NOT come out of the blue, only to insult muslims - there was a reason, and a good one. How hard is that to understand?

When I read that timeline (for about the umpteenth time) I come to the opposite conclusion. That they did do it JUST to get the reaction, and to insult. Can you figure out why?

The paper published them to less than 200.000 subscribers who would forget them the next day. The Imams published them to billions of people all over the world, making sure everyone would see them (including the falsified ones). Which is the bigger crime?

The Imams committed no crime.
It is not a crime to ask for help. It is not a crime to tell the police your husband hit you. It is not a crime to report a crime, and God save us if it ever becomes one.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Originally posted by Northman The storyline clearly proves, that the cartoons were created and published as a response to selfcensorship, caused by the fear already present in western Europe. A fear induced by Islamic extremists and terrorists. They did NOT come out of the blue, only to insult muslims - there was a reason, and a good one. How hard is that to understand? When I read that timeline (for about the umpteenth time) I come to the opposite conclusion. That they did do it JUST to get the reaction, and to insult. Can you figure out why?

Originally posted by King John [QUOTE=Mughaal] You're right they don't draw Buddha with a bomb on his head, they just blow Buddha up. But I guess that's what passes for tolerance. Hypocrisy is rampant in all places. Mughaal, get off your high horse. Should the newspaper have published the Christ cartoon? That's up to the newspaper. Should the same newspaper have published the Mohammed cartoon? Again that is up to the newspaper. However if one is published (or not) so should the other one be. What you fail to realize though, is that the two cartoons were separated by three years. At a newspaper or any business much can happen in three years. In three years owners can change, editors can change, general political stances and affiliations can also change. All these things must be taken into account before you endeavor to lambast an entire continent for a cartoon. There is no excuse for threatening harm or actually harming somebody because the drew a picture that you didn't like. There are ways of combatting such cartoons, for instance a Islamic or opposition newspaper could print a cartoon of equal offensiveness (like a Christ cartoon). NEITHER ONE OF THESE CARTOONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, BUT ONE MUST ALSO RESPECT THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH SUCH CARTOONS. Any such imprisonment or harmful action taken against the publishers or cartoonists should not be condoned. It should also be noted that the media have a responsibility to be sensitive to what a given publication can make a specific population do. They, the media, however, are not responsible for the actions of a few bad apples. At some point personal responsibility has to come into the equation. If person A kills person B for making a cartoon that person A finds insulting, then person A should take responsibility for his/her actions and should be punished. The fact of the matter is that cartoons are just cartoons and if you immigrate to a country don't expect that country to tailor its customs to yours. Upon immigration the immigrant has to adopt the hosts customs not visa versa. You are doing nothing in your posts other than establishing how biased you are. You are in such a rage about this well then I pose this question to you. Would you be this upset about an anti-Semitic cartoon in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, Germany, France, Russia, USA, or Britain? I doubt you would, I could be wrong though.

First of all, Muslims dont make Christ cartoons because it will be equally damning in the Muslim community.

I deleted the rest.


Edited by Mughaal - 11-Mar-2008 at 23:46

Originally posted by Panther No the Imams didn't commit a crime by practising their freedom of speech, per se. But the problem was in their intent, which was not too inform, which isn't a crime, but by appearances so far.. too only enflame middle eastern passions into bloodshed and violence to prove what ever point they were trying to make!   Panther

Isn't this bit of a superficial claim? To say that they intended bloodshed and violence is kind of derogatory of their own faith. It is not as if any Imam and any Madrasa in the world is a breeding ground for negative opinions. You do know that someone who teaches and studies his faith continuously might be a bit ticked off by such insinuating photos. Of course they would report such a blatant attempt to offend. Putting the violence on their shoulders doesn't make much sense unless you have transcripts and audio recordings of them specifying some conspiracy theory scheme immersed in blood and gore...

Originally posted by es_bih Originally posted by Panther No the Imams didn't commit a crime by practising their freedom of speech, per se. But the problem was in their intent, which was not too inform, which isn't a crime, but by appearances so far.. too only enflame middle eastern passions into bloodshed and violence to prove what ever point they were trying to make!   Panther   Isn't this bit of a superficial claim? To say that they intended bloodshed and violence is kind of derogatory of their own faith. It is not as if any Imam and any Madrasa in the world is a breeding ground for negative opinions. You do know that someone who teaches and studies his faith continuously might be a bit ticked off by such insinuating photos. Of course they would report such a blatant attempt to offend. Putting the violence on their shoulders doesn't make much sense unless you have transcripts and audio recordings of them specifying some conspiracy theory scheme immersed in blood and gore...