The University of Birmingham discussion board: underground, uncensored, online :: email@example.com
Log in to check your private messages
Request an upgrade
! 32+ Pre-installed Modifications! 3 Server Locations to choose from: USA, UK and JAPAN.
11th December 2012 - CreatephpBB: All servers are upgraded to run using SSD drive.
to report problems!
The Radish Forum Index
Post a reply
View more Emoticons
[quote="lukedg"]They might be offensive but that doesn't mean they should be banned. Free speech is very important, just because somebody has a different viewpoint from the majority doesn't mean they should be gagged. If we start judging people for printing offensive cartoons and banning them we are on the way to tyranny by majority! As for the protesters, if they're completely peaceful that's fine, but encouraging violence and murders has got to be clamped down on.[/quote]
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
If you are visually impaired or cannot otherwise read this code please contact the
Confirmation code: *
Enter the code exactly as you see it. The code is case sensitive and zero has a diagonal line through it.
All times are GMT
Select a forum
Guild and University
Sales / Wants / Lost / Found
Activism and Politics
Gigs and Parties
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:39 pm
Depends how you count it. For example, he started the Iran-Iraq which killed 1.7 million approx. people or you could just count how many people he executed in peace time. Of course, you have to prove he ordered executions, something that his trial is currently trying to do...
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:07 pm
really punitive US economic sanctions which killed a hell of a lot of people. No where neer as many as Saddam himself
If we accept the figure the UN gives of 1/2 million children killed by sanctions I think Saddam would be going some to top that. I dont know how many deaths can be attributed to him but the above quote probably isnt accurate
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:59 pm
It doesnt really apply to Denmark, Who I'm sure arent asking the IMF for ashort term loan to tide them over the current situation, but the think about 'economic boycots' is that they have killed far more people than ever gets mentioned.
On top of this they only work under certain situations when people care about economic sanctions like in Libya. If you don't care then you can cling onto power via military means like Saddam did for years under really punitive US economic sanctions which killed a hell of a lot of people. No where neer as many as Saddam himself and they did do it to liberate the country non-violently but it just wasn't applicable in Iraq.
Extremists need to resort to an Us against Them situation because they need to feed off peoples fear. Fascism and Religious Extremism have always owed a greater debt to fear and the herd mentality instead of conciliation and thought. Using the banner of 'Free speech' is a rather clever if sick method of asserting our cultural dominance over the culturally embedded religious background of Islam
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:19 pm
Just a few points (I'm new here so please be nice
) that occured to me:
The point with free speech for me is that respecting it is a social obligation, to do with how people live together, not something that should determine what you use this right to express. We all have this obligation. Nobody, whether a government, an individual, or a movement should try to prevent other people from expressing themselves. This means that, as Dear Prudence pointed out, "free speech does not mean you HAVE to say everything, it just means you CAN"; but also that any action, peaceful or otherwise, which has the intent of preventing people from expressing themselves is far far worse. This includes, for example, economic boycotts of danish goods, which people sometimes point to as legitimate on the basis that they are nonviolent (although I don't think anyone here has said that). Large groups of motivated noviolent people can end up being censors just as easily as governments.
It's no surpise to me that the people who've reacted strongest on both sides are both extremely right wing, whether the BNP (or other people who find them hilarious just because they're offensive to muslims) or the worst islamist groups. These people want to polarise opinion, to create a 'you're either one of us or one of them' mentality that opposes all of the preceps of liberal society. These people want to portray any controversy as evidence of a clash of civilisations, in order to advance their own decidedly unliberal agendas. It's worth noting that the cartoons were fist published in September. It was certainly not a spontanious reaction from ordinary muslims that sparked the crisis we have now. 5 months ain't that spontanious.
The reaction of many liberal european newspapers in republishing the cartoons seems to play straight into their hands. This makes any intention of 'defending free speech' in doing so seem rather paradoxical.
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:23 pm
They might be offensive but that doesn't mean they should be banned. Free speech is very important, just because somebody has a different viewpoint from the majority doesn't mean they should be gagged. If we start judging people for printing offensive cartoons and banning them we are on the way to tyranny by majority!
As for the protesters, if they're completely peaceful that's fine, but encouraging violence and murders has got to be clamped down on.
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:16 am
Yet again - free speech does not mean you HAVE to say everything, it just means you CAN.
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 10:06 am
They should be allowed on the basis of Free Speech, however you'd think that the editor would refrain as it was fairly obvious in would offend muslims to some extent.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:53 pm
i understand your points in your above reply - and on the whole, why cnt "we" publish the pictures, if "thy" dnt want to do it.
i am not sayin i agree with you..
but if you, or anyone, can give me one decent constructive reason as to why a caricature of my prophet (pbuh) with a bomb strapped to his head SHOULD be published, especially in the times we are living in (need i elaborate?)... thn, we can begin sum sort of intelectual discusion.
i am not saying there is no intelect in what 'u' have said, but on the whole issue of publishing these sort of pictures, it is just mindless.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:16 pm
I think that people should definately challenge belief systems, especially if you think they lead to inhumane practices (as with capital punishment), but there is a difference between challenging a system and just insulting its believers. The point is that the cartoons were not really a criticism of the muslim faith, they weren't made to make a valid point about the religion, they were just racist and inflammatory.
Otherwise old stereotypes and views held by people will not change, this should apply equally to every religion.
For example, who is going to change their view for the better when they see a cartoon of their prophet Muhammed (who's pictorial depiction is forbidden) with a bomb wrapped in the turban he's wearing?
because people have died "due to the cartoons" that they shouldn’t be published either
I don't think anyone has said that.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:04 pm
Thank you for that insightful comment but if no one had commented that women should have the vote, even though it was a long held belief then they wouldn’t have received suffrage and if capital punishment hadn’t been challenged then we would still be saddled with that unjust system. These are other examples of long held traditions being challenged. Other things have been challenged to but not changed like democracy for example. The difference between all these examples and challenging religious beliefs? none.
Cheers for the response though
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:16 pm
we should be testing and ridiculing ancient traditions and values, of which religion is one
what an idiot.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:07 am
Post subject: Offensive? yes. not funny? Yes. Hide them? No.
I think that the debate about these cartoons has completely been lost in this country. I have seen the Cartoons and it is true, a few of them are probably extremely offensive to Muslims (I cannot say for sure because I am not a Muslim), but that is not the issue here and I think that has been lost.
In reply to an earlier argument that child pornography would not be published is to go off the point completely, if the Danish cartoons caused no reaction no one in this country or any country would care about them because they are not particularly funny or interesting, but because they have caused such a large reaction there is the sensible reaction to want to see them. If any other photo or cartoon caused such a large reaction across the world with the paper and government of the country that published them choosing not to retract them most intelligent people would want to see what all the fuss is about whatever the subject.
The problem with this debate is not about the wider issues only the cartoons, a prime example of this at the moment is the "Jerry Springer-the musical" this depicts Jesus Christ, The most holy person in Christian faith being depicted as a homosexual, which is offensive to pretty much all Christians (much like the portrayal of Muhammad being offensive to Muslims). Yet this is tolerated and praised in the media and society at large without any call for it being banned. Which is as it should be. I believe fully in free speech and in a free society we should be testing and ridiculing ancient traditions and values, of which religion is one. Otherwise old stereotypes and views held by people will not change, this should apply equally to every religion.
Don’t get me wrong I feel that although some of the cartoons were to be honest, racist. There is no room to say that that because they offend some people (like the Jerry Springer musical) that they shouldn’t be published, or that because people have died "due to the cartoons" that they shouldn’t be published either, the same logic dictates that because a woman wears a short skirt it is her fault somehow if she is raped. Also just because Muslims aren’t allowed to portray the prophet doesn’t mean that other people also aren’t allowed to either in the same way that although Hindu’s don’t eat beef because they believe them to be sacred doesn’t mean we shouldn’t.
I believe that there is no reason for the Radish to publish these pictures, but I do believe that a web address telling readers where they can find the pictures should be. Any newspaper or information provider should do just that, inform (and although many editors would say they haven’t published the cartoons because they are offensive the real reason would probably be the fear of an attack by a radical on their reporters). Many people know about the reaction the cartoons have created but haven't seen the Cartoons, to make a rational judgement to this they should be able to easily see them so they can decide for themselves. There are often cartoons or pieces of art which insult Jesus and Christianity and rightfully so, if a faith is worth anything it should be able to resist such abuses. If an editor of any publication in the country wishes to critisise a religion or the head of a religion in any form they chose they should be able to without the fear of persecution or intimation. As I read on an earlier post “the solution to offence caused by free speech is always more free speech.”.
I’m sorry for my poorly constructed reply and I'm sure my argument shall get picked apart but if it's even slightly made you guys think more about this then it will totally be worth it.
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:43 pm
I have posted on another similar thread - from a muslim point of view, it is first very disrespectful, as the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) is more important to us than our own blood, and therefore it is like someone insulting our parents, but much worse.
Firstly, we are not permitted to create images of our prophet (pbuh), and the rest of the world knows this - living in a society where 1/5 people is a muslim, any newspaper in the world would recognise that it would be inciteful - and a Danish professor actually advised against this I heard, to the paper, but the paper went ahead nonetheless.
There is no benefit whatsoever to producing the pictures. Other papers have printed them in order to preserve freedom of speech. With all due respect to my Jewish brothers - I would love to European papers printing anti-semetic pictures, and not being told they were - but, in reality, it just would not happen - so I don't see why it should be any different with muslims.
Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:22 pm
they were deliberatly provactive cartoons, printed in a newspaper which editorially dislikes muslims.
sure it was about censorship, but of the kind where people don't like calling you a scumbag for having a funny chin.
AFAIC, Fleming Rose is an utter so-and-so and has lied to every english speaking news outlet over his intentions for the cartoons.
(Althought I did like the cartoon which drew a picture of a footballer, called Muhammed, pointing to a blackboard which says in Persian "Jyllends' journalists are a bunch of reactionary provactuers". Heh)
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:39 am
It was just needless antagonism dressed up as free speech.
That's the trouble with power structures, you see. The decision to print those cartoons would have eventually come down to one person's decision (either the editor or the media group owner). If all the newspaper staff had been involved in a consensus process, the cartoons probably wouldn't have made it into print.
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Igloo Theme Version 1.0 :: Created By: