Comments on: This is not offensive

By: Harry Flashcove

Harry Flashcove — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:23:45 +0000

Now these anally retentive morons are imprisoning english teachers. Too frightened/paranoid to allow any other religion into their 3rd world/13th Century country they have no sense humour or humanity what are they going to do next? Imprison the CHILDREN?? Oh - they already do that, oh well - SUDAN YOU ARE PATHETIC!

By: Chris Black

Chris Black — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:26:06 +0000

14: Neil, I agree the Dave Allen comparison isn’t perfect. But one of the points here was that he could satirise the religion of his ancestors.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:40:31 +0000

James, if something is not worth publishing once, it is not worth publishing merely because it has become controversial. Indeed, if there was a violent reaction to neo-Nazi propaganda I would think it deeply counter-productive to republish that in the name of free speech. By republishing the cartoons the editors are behaving in a petty tit for tat way; and we are allowing ourselves to be provoked by Islamist extremists. Across much of the Islamic world there is precious little freedom of speech and freedom of expression. As we seem to indulge hatred against Mohammed, so it will become easier for hatred directed towards Jews, Christians and secularism to be ‘excused’ with recourse to moral equivalence, while the chance of increased freedom of speech within the Islamic world to be resisted on the grounds of the defence of Islam. I am not worried about scaring the horses; rather I am taking a different viewpoint – that the republishers would have been better advised to judge whether the cartoons would ordinarily have been published (probably not), and whether it might have been better to observe the Christian maxim to turn the other cheek rather than risk an escalation to no good effect.

By: James

James — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:29:21 +0000

Neil, you seem to think I’m making a joke. I’m not.

By: James

James — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:28:24 +0000

Simon,

I’m just not impressed by your “don’t scare the horses” approach. The flipside to your pessimistic view is that this whole wrangle is both increasing understanding in the West about Islam and challenging the notion that Muslims have a right to not be offended. I can see a lot of good and mutual understanding coming out of this mess. None of which is to deny that there won’t be a mess in the meantime, but mess is the natural by-product of living in an Open Society.

And it isn’t irony. I’m being the exact opposite of ironic by posting that image. How is making the simple observation that a drawing of X is not the same thing as X ironic? You might not have a sense of irony, but at least take the trouble to understand the concept!

By: Neil Craig

Neil Craig — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:17:46 +0000

Despite your French it is Mohammed in the same way that Life of Brian was about Jesus. This is actually more offensive than the Jesus joke for 2 reasons.
1) Depiction of the Jesus on a cross isn’t inherently blasphemous whereas depiction of Mohammed is.
2) The people doing it aren’t Islamic. This is where the Dave Allan comparison doesn’t hold - Dave was noticeably an Irish Catholic - which is why him telling anti-Paisly jokes would not have been funny. This is also why the fatwa against Rushdie, brought up in Islam, was a more important moral issue.

Despite that I approve of the right to publish it but having a right doen’t stop it being discouteous (& not actually very funny).

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:18:41 +0000

As I said James, perhaps my sense of irony is not as developed as other people’s; then again, perhaps it is and I still think that some things are offensive beyond the limits of free speech.

I am also quite sure that these cartoons will be used as justification for anti-semitic, anti-Christian and anti-western propaganda across the Middle East, defended on the grounds of free-speech. No doubt neo-Nazis will be licking their lips as well. So, a failure to show respectful restraint on the part of European editors has led to the patently ludicrous situation that the most significant defence of free-speech that Europe has made in recent times is based round the right to publish religiously offensive images, rather than on the issues of state censorship and the rights to free expression, so curtailed as they are in large sections of the world. I imagine that many authoritarians across the Muslim in particular world are lapping up what must appear to be the most persuasive case against western style freedom of speech - handed to them by European liberal intelligentsia – that freedom of speech is incompatible with an Islamic way of life. But then, if one is ironic, perhaps one can enjoy pyrrhic victories.

By: James

James — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:40:38 +0000

The caption is my addition. But yes, I think it does change the meaning and makes a new point. I also think that people have inferred a lot of meaning into the original that when you look at it again, just isn’t there.

By: Biscit

Biscit — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:37:40 +0000

I must admit when I heard the descriptions of that cartoo it didn’t include the caption, which does completely change the meaning of the cartoon from the one suggested in the press.

It is ironic that the target of the cartoon is the very extremists that think it is making fun of their prophet.

By: James

James — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:28:32 +0000

But that’s your problem Simon. Every pejorative depiction of a Jew is anti-semitic? Even this one? We had that reactionary nonsense last year with Labour’s flying pigs poster (which, despite the hysteria, most certainly was not anti-semitic).

Your problem would appear to be that you would find any depiction offensive, regardless of context. I don’t want to live under the cloud of self censorship that you appear to advocate.