[Closed] Whose great idea was it to have a Mohammed cartoon competition?

I suppose if the idea was to flush out some Muslim extremists so you can shoot them.....then it's been pretty successful!

Odd how feedom of expression can be turned into a reason to go shooting the participants.

Whose great idea was it to have a Mohammed cartoon competition?

It was the brainchild of a woman called Pamela Geller. She runs a blog called "Atlas Shrugs", which pretty much guarantees that she can make her head revolve.

She has already accused the Daily Mail of "cowardice" and called it an "enemedia" for blacking out some of the brilliant freedom of expression that was going on when the drawing competition was interrupted. 😕

I'd imagine the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shootings are turning in their graves. They were out to mock on an equal footing with every other belief, these people were just out to specifically antagonise and single group of people. One has intelligence, the other is moronic.

There's freedom of speech, and there's deliberately winding people up. The law ensures the former, common decency should inhibit the latter.

There's freedom of speech, and there's deliberately winding people up. The law ensures the former, common decency should inhibit the latter.

I can't help but think that in the scheme of things, shooting at people is a far, far worse thing to do and is in no way an appropriate response to "winding people up".

I hope you didn't think I was condoning the shooting of people?

I can't help but think that in the scheme of things

All absolutely solid thoughts, no one disagrees.

However, this event was put on with the absolutely transparent intention of provoking some muslims somewhere to violence in furtherance of the wider cultural war that elements of the US right are determined to wage against the country's muslims. These people will be absolutely delighted that their little event was actually attacked by actual maniacs - the best they'll have been hoping for is a mob outside a US embassy somewhere burning flags.

Getting up somewhere in public and "winding up" some out-group in the hope they'll do something stupid, so you can clobber them is all well and good as a thuggish political tactic, but it doesn't happen on the moral high ground.

Anyone fancy a trip to Texas to organise a 'Jokes about Jesus' comedy festival? I think it would go down really well.

And what's wrong with provoking people? Sometimes thoroughly stupid rules need challenging. This has nothing to do with Islam. This and a lot of other rules Muslims claim they have to live by are nothing to do with Islam itself, its about bearded old farts who impose their beliefs and interpretations onto others and should be challenged at every opportunity, especially in the context of the ideals and values of our society - If you're in the Middle East, then you shouldn't be drawing Cartoons of Mohammed. If you're in the UK then you are perfectly entitled to draw whatever you like and nothing should prevent you from doing so. Respect and understanding works both ways. These extremists will kill whatever, they will use any old excuse they like, whatever we do will prevent them from killing.

colournoise - Member
Anyone fancy a trip to Texas to organise a 'Jokes about Jesus' comedy festival? I think it would go down really well.

Shame Lennon is dead, he'd have loved that... 🙂

I think it's possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don't like their religion and you're an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That's the trouble with real life, there's not always a goodie and a baddie.

I think it's possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don't like their religion and you're an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That's the trouble with real life, there's not always a goodie and a baddie.

Well said.

molgrips - Member
There's freedom of speech, and there's deliberately winding people up.

And as you well know, human nature ensures we can't have one without the other.

true but some times there are a bunch of people who should only be allowed to express their free speech inside a soundproof room.

Yes, very inconvenient, freedom, isn't it?
🙂

As a species, we seem unable to cope with it.

So some right wing crazies hold a Mohammad drawing competition, so the only people who see these cartoons are right wing crazies.

Then some other even further ring wing crazies come along to shoot them for doing so. They get shot themselves.

Seems like a pretty good result. 2 less very right wing crazies, who are willing to massacre people in cold blood because of a cartoon.

And what's wrong with provoking people?

For the overwhelming majority of people who get on fine with their muslim neighbours, friends and colleagues and never need to draw mohamed, the problem with provoking people is the resultant acrimony, nastiness and tedium.

Obviously, no-one should be such a cry-baby prick that they make a fuss about people drawing pictures. But as no one except deranged culture-war trolls seems to need to draw mohamed anyway, the whole farrago could just be avoided by not drawing him.

If someone was threatening death on anyone who drew an exploded diagram of a flat-pack bookcase or a pictorial guide to identifying baby robins (or other useful thing I need someone to draw) I could get behind a campaign to harass, intimidate and ghettoise them and make them feel unwelcome in their own country. The mohamed thing, not so much.

I think it's possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don't like their religion and you're an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That's the trouble with real life, there's not always a goodie and a baddie.

Well said.

+1

See, it has the opposite effect on me.

I've never drawn a picture of Big Mo in my life - but the bleating and insistence on special treatment by the religious (of any stripe) makes me want to get the spray cans out.

Freedom you're scared to excercise isn't freedom.

So if this Pamela Geller is OK with freedom of speech events then I suppose that she would be all for someone holding a 'F### The USA' event?

Crazy world!

If someone was threatening death on anyone who drew an exploded diagram of a flat-pack bookcase or a pictorial guide to identifying baby robins (or other useful thing I need someone to draw) I could get behind a campaign to harass, intimidate and ghettoise them and make them feel unwelcome in their own country.

Dunno, if it meant never having to go back to Ikea I could probably come round to the idea.

she would be all for someone holding a 'F### The USA' event?

She obviously wouldn't. However, she would probably display her disapproval on a blog or an interview on Fox News, maybe a placard or two with some shouting.

She wouldn't go and get her Glock and start shooting people.

Big difference.

Freedom you're scared to excercise isn't freedom.

In the list of "Reasons I don't usually draw mohamed", fear comes so far behind "pointless", "never needed a picture of him" and "tiny courtesy to people who apparently care about that sort of thing" that it barely warrants a mention.

Besides, does anyone really, honestly think the biggest problem with islam is their (theologically disputed) prohibition on drawing the prophet?

She wouldn't go and get her Glock and start shooting people.

She wouldn't go and get her Glock and start shooting people.

I bet one of her sympathisers would though.

2 less psychotic killers = result! Shirley 😉

Besides, does anyone really, honestly think the biggest problem with islam is their (theologically disputed) prohibition on drawing the prophet?

It's a perfect example of the religous insisting their beliefs have greater validity than those of the non-religious.

Its not really RS its just a bit of respect

Look at this way they cannot make us go to mosque or dress the way they do and we just dont draw pics of their prophet.

In a push comes to shove yes we[ secular laws] trump them but this is just deliberately provoking them for no real gain that I can see*.

FWIW they take the commandment of no craven images/idols to extreme and they cannot draw anything made by God and Mohammed is the most haram of this.

As noted who really feels repressed because of the absence of a mohammed themed cartoon in their life?

* I am not defending the shooting of people

If I lived in the Texan Muslim community, I would be glad that 2 far right wing extremists no longer lived with me.

What do I win?
[img] [/img]

Rusty Spanner - Member

Freedom you're scared to excercise isn't freedom.

Freedom to offend should be balanced out by consideration for your fellow human beings. It obviously isn't.

I'm not sure that most muslims who're upset by these things are demanding special treatment. They're obviously demanding particular treatment, but it doesn't follow that they think they're the only ones who should have it. If I say don't spit in my pint, it doesn't follow that I think it's fine if you spit in everyone else's pint; I'm only defending my pint because it's my pint. Earthman, your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

You can spit in Mohammed's pint though. He wasn't drinking it anyway.

The right to cause offence will always supersede the so called respect for religion no matter how unpleasant the offenders' are. This is fundamental to freedom of speech. I for one would feel 'upset' without a cartoon image of Mohammad in my life as I would one of Jesus Buddah Moses the president of America or Margaret Thatcher. Please carrying causing offence and feel free to disagree with me and offend as you feel the need.

Have to wonder why it is that cartoons depicting muslims are publicized widely through the media, yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.

Reminds me of that experiment where monkeys are treated unequally, which is proven to stir tensions.

Almost as if the media are complicit in trying to provoke extremist reactions...

The right to cause offence will always supersede the so called respect for religion no matter how unpleasant the offenders' are. This is fundamental to freedom of speech

There is no right to behave like a **** and it is not essential for freedom of speech

There may be times when someones personal opinions causes offence but to personally set out just and only to cause offence is somewhat sad
The example I always give is

I can stand outside a church and hurl abuse at the bride, call her fat, ugly a bit of a slag whatever, None of this is really a right or essentially to my freedom of expression, Furthermore if i were to do this I would expect to be hit quite often [ though I am not saying this is right either]
If you want to defend this as right and just and an essential part of free speech then knock yourself out and await someone returning the favour 😉

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be a **** though in exercising free speech you may offend someone but that is not the same as deliberately trying to offend someone.

Well that is what the UK has decided. In the U.S., this is not the case. Have you not heard of the westboro baptist church? Or the American nazis?
In the U.S., freedom of speech means that, there is no provision for stopping due to perceived offense.

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be a **** though in exercising free speech you may offend someone but that is not the same as deliberately trying to offend someone.

I'm with carbonfiend with this one.

Freedom of speech means freedom to offend. As a gay bloke I have had tons of abuse (especially from religious nutters) but it's their right to say what they want, as long as they don't come after me with big sticks.

As Stephen Fry said:

[img] [/img]

I think there is a difference between saying something which may offend some people and deliberately going out of your way to be an arsehole.

The organisers and attendees at this gunfight (all 200 of them, wow impressive eh?) in my opinion fall into the arsehole category.

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

Why?

What has the colour of their skin got to do with anything?

She obviously wouldn't. However, she would probably display her disapproval on a blog or an interview on Fox News, maybe a placard or two with some shouting.

It is interesting that the American Muslim haterz publicised that they had "heavy security" for this event - it's almost as if they expected something to happen...