Shootings in Paris

[SWP's back]

You fail to understand that their beliefs ARE who they are. I've no problem with criticising religion as a concept or some of the individual practices of religions but when that crosses the line and becomes gratuitous or personal then, whatever my views on religion, I don't support that.

You didn't answer rmy question the other day so I'll ask again. What would happen if you walked around Qatar handing out leaflets saying Mohammed was a fairy-tale character and Islam is a load of bollocks?

I did answer Colin, you obviously missed it, so I shall accept your apology in lieu of it. I would be arrested as that is against the law in Qatar. There is no freedom of speech in Qatar. I am aware of that, even if I don't agree with it. I make the choice to stay as I take home about 5 times what I did in the UK, and that is the sole reason. It is a pain in the arse. When it rains out here, the national press praise the Emir for praying to Allah for it, no word of a lie.

And people's beliefs are not who they are at all. If I attacked someone personally (assuming I am back in the UK for a moment) for being a Muslim, I would have no defence in law. But there is no law to protect someone's beliefs, and rightly so. There is zero reason, luckily, for walking around on egg shells to protect someone's non-rational beliefs. A belief that, along with all other Abrahamic beliefs can be categorised as group psychosis.

Sorry Sam, didn't see it first time round. Yes blasphemy is against the law in most if not all Muslim states as it's seen as an attack on their core beliefs and they protect those beliefs very zealously and that's the culture they're used to. You can't expect them to switch off from that when they leave for an environment that is predominantly non-Muslim. In the same way, you live in a strictly Muslim environment but still don't believe in religion. Even if there weren't blasphemy laws, you're a sensible guy and wouldn't deliberately seek to offend your hosts I'd assume.

Here, we do things differently but there are still laws covering incitement to religious hatred. The CPS sum up the situation as follows:

It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.

It's a grey area however and the CPS say you can be offensive without it being considered (in the eyes of the law) insulting. But that doesn't mean it's not insulting to the person involved and you can't force them not to be insulted. It's just that the law won't protect them.

France also has similar laws and Charlie Hebdo has been prosecuted in the past over what were perceived to be anti-Muslim cartoons. On that occasion they were acquitted on the grounds that the cartoons targeted terrorists/fundamentalists, rather than Muslims per se. However Brigitte Bardot has been convicted of making statements that were seen as anti-Muslim generally. So even France, which consciously decouples state and religion, has limits on what you can say or do.

You hit the nail on the head. I abide by the rules of the state that I choose to live in. If I want to openly mock Islam, I can go somewhere more tolerant and liberal. I have to abide by their laws, just as theists should abide by the laws of France/UK etc and not expect to be treated differently or with kid bloody gloves.

As for the law in the UK, one can mock religious beliefs all one wants. There is no law against that. It's mocking the belief, not the person.

I can say that Islam is a load of fucking wank and if Allah is the supreme being then I'd take my chances in hell. All perfectly fine. What I can't do (and rightly so) is call someone 'a Muslim c***' etc or state that all Muslims should be deported.

The law is more than happy with mocking a belief, an idea and thank the Lord for that.

 

[SWP's back]

I'm not sure why people are arguing about this. PB and Metal Biker are both posters that I have a huge amount of time for on here but I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. From what I can see, every poster on this thread has condemned the attacks in Paris last week. Every poster also believes in the right to free speech as well.

The problem that PB and others have highlighted is that this is a powder keg of a subject and it might have been more sensible for the cartoonists to steer away from it. Granted that goes against the idea of free speech but we saw the furore in 2005 when the Danish cartoons were published and it doesn't take a genius to work out from the reaction back then that there are some utter lunatics out there that would be prepared to carry out those threats to kill if another publication ever decided to go down that route. It's beyond belief of the vast majority of right thinking people, me included, that someone would even contemplate doing such a thing over what in our eyes is merely a cartoon poking fun at a religious figure but you only have to look at the behaviour of some of these nutters towards others of the same religion to realise that there is just no reasoning with them.

None of the above is excusing what happened and as for understanding why they did it, personally I'll never be able to comprehend why someone would go to those lengths.

Couldn't disagree more buddy. The very fact that you're suggest we steer away from it, is the very reason we shouldn't.

Islam should be no more protected than Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or any one of a thousand other belief systems. Let them alter their view as opposed to western society bowing down to terror.

 

[SWP's back]

In the Telegraph:

Rotterdam’s Moroccan born mayor tells his fellow Muslim immigrants they “can ---- off” if they do not appreciate freedom of speech in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack

Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Labour politician and former government minister, issued his uncompromising message on the day that Islamist terrorists attacked the French satirical magazine because it published cartoons mocking Islam.

“It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom. But if you do not like freedom, in Heaven’s name pack your bag and leave,” he said.

“There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself,” he continued. “Be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists. And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can ---- off.”

Mr Aboutaleb, who became the Dutch city’s mayor in 2008, has repeatedly hit the headlines for his outspoken views on the integration of immigrants, including praise from Boris Johnson.

“[His] is the voice of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire. We can and will protect this country against these jihadist thugs,” wrote London’s mayor in Monday’s Telegraph.

“But if we are going to win the struggle for the minds of these young people, then that is the kind of voice we need to hear – and it needs above all to be a Muslim voice.”

A “secular Muslim”, Mr Aboutaleb grew up the son of an imam in northern Morocco, but moved to the Netherlands aged 15 in 1976.

He has been criticised by Geert Wilders, the popular Dutch anti-immigrant leader, for holding public office while possessing dual Dutch and Moroccan passports.

 

[Balti]

Bacchus is the only true god.

And if you take the piss out of him I will fucking kill you.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm not sure why people are arguing about this. PB and Metal Biker are both posters that I have a huge amount of time for on here but I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. From what I can see, every poster on this thread has condemned the attacks in Paris last week. Every poster also believes in the right to free speech as well.

The problem that PB and others have highlighted is that this is a powder keg of a subject and it might have been more sensible for the cartoonists to steer away from it. Granted that goes against the idea of free speech but we saw the furore in 2005 when the Danish cartoons were published and it doesn't take a genius to work out from the reaction back then that there are some utter lunatics out there that would be prepared to carry out those threats to kill if another publication ever decided to go down that route. It's beyond belief of the vast majority of right thinking people, me included, that someone would even contemplate doing such a thing over what in our eyes is merely a cartoon poking fun at a religious figure but you only have to look at the behaviour of some of these nutters towards others of the same religion to realise that there is just no reasoning with them.

None of the above is excusing what happened and as for understanding why they did it, personally I'll never be able to comprehend why someone would go to those lengths.

Couldn't disagree more buddy. The very fact that you're suggest we steer away from it, is the very reason we shouldn't.

Islam should be no more protected than Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or any one of a thousand other belief systems. Let them alter their view as opposed to western society bowing down to terror.

I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with your view Sam. But as I said above, the law is just part of the whole picture. I wouldn't go into some pub in a dodgy part of Salford and mock the local hard-man, even though there's nothing illegal about it. If said hard-man beat me to a pulp, then the law is very much on my side but you would certainly question the wisdom of my action.

 

[aguero93:20]

Bacchus is the only true god.

And if you take the piss out of him I will fucking kill you.

Pan the goat god is far superior you heathen wine-quaffing scum.

 

[M18CTID]

I'm not sure why people are arguing about this. PB and Metal Biker are both posters that I have a huge amount of time for on here but I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. From what I can see, every poster on this thread has condemned the attacks in Paris last week. Every poster also believes in the right to free speech as well.

The problem that PB and others have highlighted is that this is a powder keg of a subject and it might have been more sensible for the cartoonists to steer away from it. Granted that goes against the idea of free speech but we saw the furore in 2005 when the Danish cartoons were published and it doesn't take a genius to work out from the reaction back then that there are some utter lunatics out there that would be prepared to carry out those threats to kill if another publication ever decided to go down that route. It's beyond belief of the vast majority of right thinking people, me included, that someone would even contemplate doing such a thing over what in our eyes is merely a cartoon poking fun at a religious figure but you only have to look at the behaviour of some of these nutters towards others of the same religion to realise that there is just no reasoning with them.

None of the above is excusing what happened and as for understanding why they did it, personally I'll never be able to comprehend why someone would go to those lengths.

Couldn't disagree more buddy. The very fact that you're suggest we steer away from it, is the very reason we shouldn't.

Islam should be no more protected than Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or any one of a thousand other belief systems. Let them alter their view as opposed to western society bowing down to terror.

FWIW Sam, I totally agree. However, I was only pointing out that is it worth effectively endangering your life for the sake of drawing a cartoon? If you were a cartoonist yourself and were aware of the reaction amongst the extremists following the 2005 publication of the Danish cartoons would you:

a) Exercise your right to free speech and produce some yourself
b) Say "I don't think I'll bother with that subject, given the outrage it caused last time"

It's easy for you to say fuck it as you're not a cartoonist and are unlikely in your profession to ever do anything that would see the spotlight put on you, but if you were would you be prepared to put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation? I'm talking purely from a commonsense point of view here by the way rather than giving extra protection to certain religions, and if gangs of Christians rather than Muslims were going round slaughtering people who poked fun at their religion I would be making the exact same point.

 

[SWP's back]

I understand where you guys are coming from, totally, and I'm not sure what I'd do if I were a cartoonist to be honest.

The sad thing is, if they stop drawing, then the lunatics win.

 

[Never Mind The Pollocks]

I'm not sure why people are arguing about this. PB and Metal Biker are both posters that I have a huge amount of time for on here but I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. From what I can see, every poster on this thread has condemned the attacks in Paris last week. Every poster also believes in the right to free speech as well.

The problem that PB and others have highlighted is that this is a powder keg of a subject and it might have been more sensible for the cartoonists to steer away from it. Granted that goes against the idea of free speech but we saw the furore in 2005 when the Danish cartoons were published and it doesn't take a genius to work out from the reaction back then that there are some utter lunatics out there that would be prepared to carry out those threats to kill if another publication ever decided to go down that route. It's beyond belief of the vast majority of right thinking people, me included, that someone would even contemplate doing such a thing over what in our eyes is merely a cartoon poking fun at a religious figure but you only have to look at the behaviour of some of these nutters towards others of the same religion to realise that there is just no reasoning with them.

None of the above is excusing what happened and as for understanding why they did it, personally I'll never be able to comprehend why someone would go to those lengths.

Couldn't disagree more buddy. The very fact that you're suggest we steer away from it, is the very reason we shouldn't.

Islam should be no more protected than Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity or any one of a thousand other belief systems. Let them alter their view as opposed to western society bowing down to terror.

I'm not fundamentally disagreeing with your view Sam. But as I said above, the law is just part of the whole picture. I wouldn't go into some pub in a dodgy part of Salford and mock the local hard-man, even though there's nothing illegal about it. If said hard-man beat me to a pulp, then the law is very much on my side but you would certainly question the wisdom of my action.

Talking shite imo. Mocking an individual to their face is not the same as drawing a cartoon.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Muslims see that Muhammad is the prophet who received the final word of God, but also respect that Jesus was a prophet who received the word of God yet I cannot recall an occasion where Muslims have been so vociferous in their condemnation about numerous pictures mocking or depicting Jesus. If the Christian God is the same as Allah, then why be so upset when one prophet of the same God is mocked by western society and not the other?

Because they are your beliefs and we respect them,however in my very first post on this thread i did mention the fact that how jesus christ (pbuh) is depicted in Hollywood movies etc for us its absurd to potray him the way they do or the pictures mocking him because we also think of jesus(pbuh) as prophet just like we think of Mohammed (pbuh) but since Christianity doesn't have a problem with depiction so we respect that .