WASHINGTON POST, OTHER NEWSPAPERS WON'T RUN 'OPUS' CARTOON MOCKING RADICAL ISLAM
A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.

The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294779,00.html


Questions for the debate:

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.
2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?
3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.
2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?
3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?

Saw this on Wired the other day. Pretty weak of the Post. Personally I thought it was pretty funny. They should have edited it to read fundie christian and it would have been let through pretty quick. Inconsistency is annoying. Its all fair game IMO, and if actually offensive, what a weak religion they have.
Anyone can comment on anything--just not actually have their demands met when it airs or is published.
Not being familiar with the Post I don't know where its leanings lie, I have heard left center and neocon.
Regardless, they seem weak and should be made fun of mercilessly. Just one more reason why Print news is on its way out.

Questions for the debate:

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

Should they have? I don't really know. The First Amendment protects freedom of the press as well as freedom of speech and religion. Since the press is not a government organization, they have the right to print whatever they want and refuse to print whatever they don't want. I feel they made a judgment call based on the current political climate surrounding radical Islam (and the religion of Islam in general). We are currently at war in a country whose population is heavily Islamic. Not merely at war with religious fanatics, but attempting to reconstruct a nation in which the majority of the populace is Islamic. Christians are well-represented here in America, which makes the criticisms of Christian radicals a more direct attack at our own country rather than someone else's.

2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?

No, there is no guarantee of freedom of speech--there is a guarantee of protection from governmental censorship of speech.

3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?

I may be failing to understand the question, but could you clarify what this means?

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

Absolutely not. It is a bad case of cowardlyness that pulled this cartoon. thier right, but lame.



2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?

Well, no, the goverment didn't do this- the washington post did it. That doesn't mean we aren't willingly giving them up by doing this though. Screw the Muslims- make fun of them- this is America- if you can't make fun of religious freaks- who can ya make fun of?


3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?

Anyone can comment on a cartoon for gawds sake- why not? The more you make fun of religion, spirituality and silly mythos, the better, the best cure for the self righteous is a good dose of humility via being pointed at and laughed for being ignorant and stupid.

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.
2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?
3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?

Eh, lame. But then the fundamentalists are all crazy, so who knows? A sane person can see that this cartoon makes fun of American women, American men and American fads. The fundamentalist thing is the hook, not the punch. Sex is the punch, or lack thereof god willing.

Freedom of speech means freedom from speech too. Nobody has to say anything.

People of any religion are free to make or not make comment on anything.

I thought the stip was mildly funny, a little corny, comfortably sly. I do like the cartoonist's style and am happy to see he's back.

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

No, I don't think they should have. This would have been the first publication of a regular, commissioned cartoon strip and I suspect that, in the scheme of things, it would have passed without much comment either in the US or the Islamic world.

Somewhat different from the Danish cartoon controversy, which involved the reprinting of previously and disparately (i.e. thay hadn't all previous appeared in the same publication at the same time) published cartoons, the deliberate whipping-up of a protest by Islamic extremists (who hadn't said a word on first publication), which in turn led to a kind of pan-European test of press machismo whereby every newspaper was "supposed" to print the cartoons out of "solidarity". As FargoUT points out, the point of press freedom is that it includes the right NOT to print something, as well as the right to print it.


2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?

Yes - and that's exactly what they want us to do. Changing our behaviour AT ALL in response to their threats achieves much of what they want. This is especially true of humour - you can't be a terrorist if people are laughing at you; you need them to be terrified of you to be a functional terrorist.

3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?

They are and they do - the press (rightly) ignores their comments for the most part. And it would be wrong to think that these religions, even today, never threaten or carry out protests or even acts of violence when they don't get their own way. Since 9-11 (and pretty much only since then) the Western world has been tiptoeing around religious and spiritual sensibilities (mostly Muslim, but it seems to me that this is creeping into other areas too; theatre productions that close because of Sikh protests and threats of violence spring to mind, as does the notorious ligitiousness of the Sceintologists) in ways that we haven't seen since the era of religious persecutions in the 17th and 18th centuries.

While we lament that Islam (and some other religions) never underwent their own Enlightenment era, we shouldn't forget our own Enlightenment lessons - religion should primarily be a matter for private individuals and should be discouraged from public discourse and public policy setting.

Well here's the thing. If you're the Post or any of the other papers that pulled this cartoon do you want to be the catalyst for the next wave of Islamic rage that sets cars afire and kills nuns?
It would seem so. Eventually though Americans, especially, get fed up with this sort of thing and swing back the other way, hard.
Well they do. Look what happened with Wee Wee (look it's not my fault, talk to Jamie and Mike) Christ and Dung Virgin Mary. Although the Christians and Jews seem to know how to take a joke.

True, they do. But I would like to add that the 'Christ wee', ect were an issue of funding those displays at taxpayer expense, not anyone's rights to display said material. A couple of nights ago I watched an episode of South Park. There was a statue of the Virgin Mary that bled out of the anus while farting, and had ostensible healing properties. The pope decided that it wasn't a miracle after determining that the blood was actually coming out of the vagina rather than the anus. I'd say (privately funded) free speech generally goes unobstructed when the offended faith is Christian (or Jewish). At any rate, it was kind of a funny episode but the reverence isn't there. Apparently South Park tried something similar with the Muslim faith and was censored.

1.Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

I don't think it was really inflammatory and doubt it would have caused a problem, but it is the paper's call. I don't have much of an opinion either way. If the paper owner were a strict Mormon or Catholic, or something, and didn't wish to have a disparaging cartoon about Catholics or Mormons, ect, that would be his call as well. I doubt it would be as much of an issue to most, though.

2.Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?

Well, I'll parrot everyone who has said it's not really a free speech issue since the censorship was not government-sponsored. If you believe that Walmart has the authority to censor what type of reading material they wish to sell (and I do), papers also have the say in what they wish to print.

Statements like this completely miss the point. The only thing that makes "government" censorship bad is the fact that governments have the ability to use force against publishers - which is exactly what the jihadists have succeeded in doing here. "Self-"censorship in the face of the threat of violence (which, make no mistake at all, is EXACTLY what's going on here) is the very definition of giving up one's freedom of speech.

In fact, in some ways it's worse than government censorship, because if you break a law (however unjust the law may be in itself), you usually at least have some sort of due process to fall back on.

I'm not so sure. Our Bill of Rights was written in the shadow of a citizenry that tarred and feathered those that opposed the revolution. Somehow, I doubt that the intent was quite what you subscribe it to be. “Free speech” does not mean that the speech can never hold any consequence. And, currently, violence is against the law.

The paper's motive for not printing the cartoon is irrelevant; unless someone is currently violating the law, for instance used extortion by holding a gun over the owner's head and demanding he doesn’t print said cartoon. As far as I know, that isn’t the case. The paper didn’t want to enrage anyone for whatever reason. It is probably self-censorship in the face of potential boycott. Paper subscriber numbers are dwindling and most newspapers can't afford to anger sponsers. If the paper defers to sponsers, does that qualify as “free speech”?

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

No. Good grief. The cartoon in question was in the LA Times and I found it funny – maybe not as funny as other Opus strips, but hardly inflammatory or mocking. Berkeley Breathed is brilliant and I look forward to his strips each Sunday. I have a couple here in my office. My favorite is the one with the kids debating whether “he” is black or white, and the last frame shows the kids measuring Opus.

Oddly enough, the other one is the strip making fun of scandalous cartoons (only this time, instead of Mohammed, it was Bush being the butt of the joke).

People need to lighten up and pay attention to more important things than cartoonists.

2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?

Well, some papers certainly seem to be. Isn’t the Post the one owned by the Moonies? ‘splains a lot.
Edited to add:
Whoops, not Moon (that's the Times), but someone equally hinky. It seem that Katherine Graham has very repressive ideas of what a paper should and should not print:


God forbid we should be exposed to ... to.... CARTOONS!!!

What I mean is should a cartoon making fun of Christians or Jews be subject to the same silly review as this cartoon? Should they be pulled if say Jerry Falwell doesn’t like it. This is what happened here.

The free speech right of the cartoonist was denied here for imo little reason except fear of the terrorists.

I have to agree with Ted, on this rare occasion- - the Post is a bunch of wusses, obviously. Though, Mrs P makes a good point about the boycott issue- hwever, they only appear to be afraid of Muslims boycotting- I mean, how large is the Muslim subscription to the Post? Does it hurt the post to lose both muslm subscribers?

Larry Flynnt, possibly one of the greatest freedom fighters in our nation's history, went toe to toe with Jerry Falwell so that freedom could ring true, and so anyone can make fun of Jerry Falwell's mama concievng him in an outhouse - a supreme court case that he won, BTW.

I hope the post loses lots of money for the backlash personally.

I wish I had talent as a cartoonist- I would feature all anti-religion, all the time.

In the interests of full disclosure, the cartoon contained both a mocking of Radical Islam (which I actually think was poking fun more at Rudy, to be honest) AND a subtle sexual innuendo. Its very possible the sex reference may have gotten more objection than the Islam satire. Though WaPo has yet to comment to its hard to say with any certainty why they chose to do so.

I can understand sensitivity in that direction, even if I don't agree with the newspaper on their editorial choices.

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.
The newspaper owners can decide to run or not run a cartoon on their own. It's their call. And quite frankly you don't know any more than any of us what the newspapers motives were.

2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?
We're not giving up freedom of speech. No government agency has done anything at all here, and in fact most newspapers ran the cartoon.

3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?
Because Lord knows Christians never whine about people saying nasty things about them, do they.

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

I haven't seen the cartoon, but I wonder if there might not be a more pragmatic concern on the part of the Washington Post over the security of their overseas reporters. Or, for that matter, even here at home. Radical Muslims have been known after all to kill journalists, kidnap them, imprison them. Not a very open-minded or civilized group of people. Perhaps this factored into the Post's decision?


Aquilla

For those who would like to see the "offensive" Opus cartoon strip, go here. I'm not responsible if you're offended.

Breathed is no stranger to controversy.

If I'm ever your poster-boy for Christianity or whining you should really take the time, you know count to ten or something, and look again. You don't know too many people who have less use for organized religion than me. Which is very different than hating organized religion which gives the hater so many uses and ample time for whining about percieved offenses.

I thought the strip was kinda cute--thanks for the link, DaffyGrl!

There was no mention, let alone criticism of Mohammed or the Qu'ran in this strip, and from what I can tell, Islam was actually portrayed in a positive light based on what the female character said. I am sorry that the Washington Post pulled the cartoon.

It seems to me that a Muslim who would be offended by that comic strip would be akin to someone who played Beatles' records backwards to get secret messages. The Washington Post cannot be held responsible for every zealot who takes umbrage at the funnies.

Of course, it is easy to wag a finger at a newspaper's editorial staff for not upholding freedom of speech in the comics when the finger wagger stands to lose nothing or no one in his/her family because of the fallout.

I have to agree - reading the strip, I can't see how ANYONE could be offended (except perhaps the Amish). This appears to have been pulled not because of any genuinely-founded fears for anyone's safety; even radical extremist Muslims only really objected to the Danish catroons because their depicted Mohammed, not because they just mentioned Islam to lampoon some modern American values. I daresay they might even be somewhat pleased by the cartoon.

Maybe that's why it got pulled - the newspaper didn't want the domestic heat they might get in the event that any Islamists complimented them on this cartoon? I find that a lot more credible - after all, any domestic discontent with the Post would likely translate to some lost sales and/or advertising revenue, hitting them much harder than any flag-burning in the Middle East ever could.

You know, I really don't see what the problem is. Newspapers pull comics all the time. I remember reading about a Far Side comic which was pulled from syndication because it depicted a group of ants carrying a middle-aged white man down a hole, and one ant screaming that it'd never fit.

The editor didn't care about offending middle-aged white men in specific, but rather was concerned that some people would find it offensive. Was that an affront to free speech? Of course not. Newspaper editors make decisions like this all the time... lets face facts, we only care because Islam is involved.

In Islamic culture the latitude for humour regarding holy symbols/people is different than in other faiths... The situation depicted in the cartoon is apparently not at all humourous to Muslims. I can't help but wonder if the reaction of some of the people in forum is xenophobia-motivated. Because other groups can laugh at this sort of humour and Muslims can't there is a problem with Islam? That's not nearly as "open minded" as I would expect champions of free speech to be.

I daresay you might want to follow what offends the followers of Islam somewhat more closely. They're ticked off at Soccer Balls now. Who knows how many cars will be set on fire for that offense!

This is what they said:

Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate’s newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.

“The strip came in and I knew we would have to send out an alert to all the newspapers,” Lago said. “I do that fairly regularly with materials that might pose issues for local areas. ... We knew that because it was a sex joke, it could raise issues. And there is another client that has issues with any Muslim depiction whatsoever.”

But the sexual innuendo was this: the guy might NOT get what he wanted! The punchline was that although the man in Muslim culture is pre-eminent, he doesn't get everything he wants if the women are also to be pure. It's win/lose for the poor schmuck. That's funny. It seems to me that sexual innuendo is ubiquitous in newspaper comic strips, unless you're talking about Family Circus, and as far as sexual innuendos go, this was pretty darn tame.

As far as the soccer ball fiasco goes, try distributing soccer balls with George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's mugs on them at the next GOP gathering and see whether some folks won't be kicking them around or will complain that it's yet another way to diss the Big Guy (and the president, too). The principle is the same. It is common knowledge these days that Muslims are iconoclastic, while at the same time taking so very seriously any perceived attacks on their symbols. It was a dumb thing to do putting the flags of countries on the soccer balls.

The strip has nothing offensive to say about the Muslim culture. The girl friend, who is apparently one to try fads and just might be seen sporting a nun's habit in a future strip, is trying Muslim culture on for size. If any culture is being made fun of in the comic it is our own, this time. And quite frankly, with our much-vaunted cultural diversity, we do make quite easy targets for derision by cultures with firmly-established social mores.

I think it would have been okay, at least in most markets, to let the comic strip run. But I will not criticize the editors for doing their jobs.

I think you're getting way too caught up in legalities here. It's not as if the debate questions asked us to prepare an amicus brief. This isn't about law at all. It's about reality.

The boycott argument simply doesn't hold water, since they're never afraid of offending far more numerous Christians. It's because the newspaper knows from, well, watching the news, how violently the Religion of Perpetual Outrage has been known to react to just about any perceived slight. It's cowardice, plain and simple, and it's shameful.

Fair enough. I agree that reality triumphs theory but over the rest we'll just have to disagree. Papers aren't worried about offending Christians because Christians wouldn't usually care much about "scoffers" either way....certainly not enough to do anything but write to the editor at the most while they keep cutting those coupons. I don't think the paper was worried about mass violence from this cute little cartoon. Obviously there must have been a reason it was rejected, but I think the answer is closer to mine than yours. At any rate, it's all just speculation as we'll probably never know.

Is that right? Can you show mew proof that fundamentalist Christians enjoy being the brunt of jokes like this one or far worse? I think not.

No the point here is that this is PC nonsense. “Free Speech” means that you do not need to worry about “offending” any public person or group – and as we are reminded so often it is the “offensive” speech that we strive to “protect” – not the PC speech.

We may never know all the reasons this cartoon was pulled but weather it be a bow to the PC, fear of loss of market, or fear of reprisals the implications are not imo good.

Check out the link below and tell me this would not “offend” Muslims far worse if directed at them.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1273/Top-Ten-Sig...alist-Christian

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

If I were in charge of the making the decision, I certainly would not have pulled the strip. I think it's quite funny and not at all in bad taste. My reading of it is that "traditional" sex roles are being mocked here more than anything else.

2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?

Some folks are voluntarily limiting what they say, and I think that's a shame. Fair is fair; it should be OK to poke a little gentle fun at anybody.


3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?


Well, anybody should be allowed to make any comments they like about any form of speech. Everyone should have the right to peacefully protest, to organize boycotts, and so on.

Christians may be less likely than Muslims to launch a boycott, but as Christians in the U.S. are far more numerous, the smaller percentage of Christians who'd be so inclined probably matches pretty closely in straight numbers the number of Muslims who'd also be.

But that aside, there may indeed be another explanation for the Posts actions: not fear, but ideology. Modern PC ideology says it's wrong to offend anyone except Christians, because Christians are the Oppressor. Anyone else is justified in being offended - the more shrilly and violently, the better. Either way, the message that gets across is the same: terrorism pays.

If the first strip got people's knickers in a bunch, they'll really be in a tizzy after this Sunday's Opus strip, which includes Lola Granola in "burquini" beachwear, with Opus holding a sign "not to be confused with the burqathong."

I think just because someone puts down on a form "Christian" instead of "other" doesn't really call to thier commitment to the, you know, much more than a "easter-christmas" thing. Really devout christians are pretty rabid, but thankfully a minority- that being said- the majority that get outraged enough to do something about it has to be some kind of hot button issue- like, oh, enshrining "under gawd" in the pledge by law-

methinks there is quite a bit of "lipservice" paid by fat, afluent, apathetic Americans. Kind of a "ya, it's christianity, nothin' worth throwing your life away over" - by some kind of terrorist action.

1. Should the paper have pulled this cartoon that mocked radical Islam? Why or why not.

No, they should not have done so, though I'm not convinced this cartoon mocks radical Islam. Even if it did however, I think there is a problem with any situation where radical persons hold themselves to be above criticism or sarcasm and that problem becaomes even more serious when the threat of violence is made.

The fear of offending a minority group should not over ride the fear of giving in to threats of violence.


2. Are we giving up our freedom of speech here because of fear of the radical Islamists?

I don't know. In effect, pulling the cartoon has made more waves than if it had been printed. Freedom of speech is voluntary anyway. no one is obliged to listen or to agree with any one else. The paper has the right to pull a cartoon, for what ever reasn without being accused of gving up its freedom of speech. I think it would only be a surrender if the paper made a habit of doing this, and only with regards to Islam. If that is the case, then I'd be inclined to agree that the paper had given up its freedom of expression due to fear of the consequences.


3. Based on this should Christians, Jews and other religions be allowed to comment on the appropriateness of speech and even a cartoon?

Don't they already have that right?

The difference is not in the commenting, but in the carrying out of violent actions. The death of Theo Van Gogh and the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie may be isolated incidents to many, but to any artist seeking to express themselves with regards to Islam, it is an intolerable threat the likes of which have not been seen in the western world for a long time.

For an artist, to be told that you may suffer violence and death at the hands of a person merely because you expressed an insulting opinion is a serious consideration, and a challange. An artist considering this might immedietely feel compelled to react against it. There is currently a case in Sweden where an artist has portrayed the prophet Mohammed as a dog and the local Muslims have demonstrated in the streets. Naturally the artist has received death threats.

In Denmark we now have three ongoing terrorist cases in our courts. Yesterday the police arrested some 8 young Muslims for planning to carry out an immedite attack against Denmark and for having links to al qaeda. As with previous cases, the justification offerd for these attacks against Denmark has included the Mohammed cartoons of last year.

The moral of this story is obvious. Any one who threatens violence against people does not deserve the respect they demand. If insulting a prophet leads to death threats then more prophets need to be insulted. The veneer of self righteous justification needs to be fundamentally cracked. Violence must be met with the derision it deserves.

So I'm curious... if the newspaper had pulled a cartoon depicting, lets say Princess Diana doing obscene things to a gear-stick in a tunnel in Paris about ten years ago, would you be calling that a violation of free speech?

The logic is the same, and I am genuinely disappointed that people are employing it here.



Do you ever employ credible methods of argumentation Ted? I'm curious, because I can't recall the last time that you did... why don't you ask me to prove that Wales is "nicer" than Scotland or that I'm 10% more awesome than my sister? Beyond misrepresenting the scenario you described, you've deliberately mispositioned my argument in order to discredit it. For once I'd like you to show some balls and address someone's argument head-on instead of coming at it on an angle so your arguments are hidden and less-exposed to criticism.

The point is that no proof is needed. If the editors in question believed that Muslims at large would find the cartoons offensive, then their decision is justified in the manner I described. Now, it's already a widely-ignored fact that a ban on depicting Mohammed himself is one of the strictest tenets of Islamic faith... I suggested that at-large Islam is much less open to criticism/humour regarding it's symbols and practices than Christianity, Judaism, etc. Anyone care to actually offer a factual refutation?

If it had only shown that kind of sensitivity to Princess Diana, but not to other public figures, and if it was known that Diana fanatics had a violent streak to them when it came to anything casting their idol in a bad light, I'd say that freedom of speech would have taken a hit in that instance.

OK so lets hit your contention head on sir. Your claim is that “... I suggested that at-large Islam is much less open to criticism/humour regarding it's symbols and practices than Christianity, Judaism, etc”.

Just tell me how you know that and then tell me why the hell I should care or a newspaperperson, exercising free speech, should care – for that matter.

So the editor “question believed that Muslims at large would find the cartoons offensive” but he somehow “knew” that Christians – even fundamentalist Christians are ok with it? Give me a break please.


Your “Do you ever employ credible methods of argumentation” are less than stellar here sir.

Why should any group, religion or political party be handled with kid gloves while the others are not?

To preserve readership. It's a newspaper the last time I checked... not a public school or government ministry.



Uh... studying Islam in University and talking to Muslims every now and then. What research have you done?

How about being a Christian and knowing lots of Christians and Jews for 40 years. Good enough for you or should I get affidavits?

So what you're saying then is your basing your understanding of Islam on nothing? I am Jewish, and I know my fair share.

No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that many Christians and Jews are not happy with strips and other humor like the one that was pulled (when directed at them) – BUT none of them would ever, ever presume that they could have it “pulled” or expect that anyone would “clear” any such humor with them before printing it.


Free speech means just that. No one should have to check with anyone to exercise their right to print this type of humor.

And before we get all teary-eyed about offending Muslims lets remember that they say, show and publish things out press would never touch.

Things like Americans having their heads sawed off alive. And the nice little piece below.


"The editor of an Arabic daily newspaper published in London said in an interview on Lebanese television that he would dance in Trafalgar Square if Iranian missiles hit Israel.

Talking about Iran's nuclear capability on ANB Lebanese television on June 27, Abd Al-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, said, "If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight."

Bari Atwan founded the pan-Arab daily in London in 1989, and today the paper has a circulation of around 50,000. He is also a regular commentator on Sky News and BBC News 24.

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2007/08/...in-we-read.html


And before you put words in my mouth - NO I would not want to ever do to Muslims in any media format what they feel free to do to the US all over the world.

Joe, what are you saying here? I'm not sure I follow you. I don't disagree with you but, really, what possible difference does it make to any one else which laws and tenets regarding the depiction of the prophet Mohammed apply to Muslims?

Because everyone here is playing the "well it wouldn't bother ME" card; and I am saying that there is a vast cultural difference between Islam and Christianity (Judaism, etc.) in how those traditions are depicted. The newspaper withheld the comic because it felt that it would offend muslims deeply, in much the same way that other comics have been withheld countless times.

The Far Side frequently had strips withheld during their early years for stuff that was deemed tasteless. Was that an abbrogation of free speech, or a simple business decision which is none of our business?

This is not at all what I am saying. I disagreed that there is any “vast” difference between Islam and Christianity. The fact that they have a segment of their population that is perfectly willing to murder “Christians, Jews,men women and children etc” and to show it to us on the internet, and other media leads me to believe your argument is weak.

Why the hell should we pull this cartoon while Muslim TV, internet etc. show and say things that are so disgusting no country in the civilized world would ever come close to matching?

A good way to get over being offended is to get offended often. It might help the practicioners of Islam to get good and offended now and then. Then maybe they could stop blowing things up and killing nuns when they see cartoons that offend them and then they can join the rest of the world in 2007. Less coddling might do them all some good.

What's this "we" business? Are you an advertising vendor for the Washington post? Do you have shares in their company and a voting interest? There is no we. There was no force applied. The newspaper freely chose not to run it. Did they choose not to run it out of fear of violent reprisals or out of concern for the sensibilities of their readers? I'm inclined to believe the latter (as very few newspapers were cowed by the earlier cartoon scandal.)

As to your "but... but... but the Muslims" argument, I'm sure that if the Hezbollah-run TV stations desired to reach a non-Muslim audience their content would change. This is an editorial decision plain and simple, and the only reason that ANYONE is raising a stink is because Islam is involved, and nothing brings out an angry mob like an easy-to-hate monster.

The “we” would be the media in this country. And my question is why pull this cartoon or any cartoon about Muslims while freely printing, without consultation, others poking fun at other religions.


Yes I think they did it out of fear not manners.





Ya right as if this filth is not available throughout the whole world.

d.

Glad to se you are a mind reader now.

Yes Islam is involved and damit they do not deserve to be treated differently – especially since Muslim media have absolutely no desire to even deal civilly with the US and our allies.

Well the obvious answer to this is to point out that there is no such homogenous group of people called 'the Muslims' either. There are vast cultural difference's within Islam also and not every one is a frothing, would be suicide bomber. The vast majority of Muslims are not offended by cartoons, they, like the vast majority of Christians simply shrug and move on and I have to wonder at just who is offended by what? After all, if we are talking doctrine, then Islam forbids all depiction of the human form so if we are going to cater to the religious requirements of those who would be offended at a cartoon of a women in a burqa, then we should ask ourselves at what point does western culture constitute an automatic insult?

If I know one thing, its that I do not paint or draw my illustrations on any other criteria than that laid down by the client. If the client pays me to portray the Muslim prophet as a terrorist then I will and I don't care if people get upset about it, no more than if I care if Christian get upset if I mock their absurd belief's, or if people get upset by pornography or if people get upset by coca cola ads! (Happens more often than you'd think)

What we are talking about here is a very vocal and often as not violent minority which we are constantly told is 'perverting', or 'hijacking' Islam to suit their own perceptions. If that is the case, then why are we catering to their demands if not because of fear of the consequences?

We have let murderers into our house and now we tip toe about them and call it 'respect'. Once upon a time we called those murderers Nazi's, today we call them Jihadi's, or extremist Muslims. The truth does not change though, just because we ignore it. Reality is that which remains constant even if we choose not to believe in it.

Moif
Very good points.
I heard a expert on CNN yesterday discuss Muslims in the US. He was asked why the US has not been attacked from inside the significant Muslim population we have here. His answer was his belief that Muslims in the US, more than in any other country in Europe etc., have been assimilated into out society. The average Muslim makes over 50K/year and could really care less about the radicals and their nutty jihad – or in cartoons.

I am sure we have some of the nuts here as well waiting for their chance – or orders to do whatever will kill the most Americans – but certainly altering even our humor based on an imagined “sensitivity” about religion from some Muslims is out of place here and imo in Europe/Scandinavia as well.

Do you have evidence for this? Because so far, the WaPo has refused to say what the reason was. And according to Editor & Publisher, the Washington Post Writers Group checked with Islamic experts to see if the comics were offensive to Muslims, and the answer was no.

Whatever the paper's motivation was (and I'm still wondering why they feel the need to keep so mum about it), the practical effect of it is to further solidify the chilling effect on all things critical of Islam. And that only strengthens the hands of the thugs.

Who said anything about being mum? From YOUR article...



There's no clearing house for Muslim sensibility-judgement.

I agree.

There was a controversy about Muslim cartoons in Denmark in late 2005 and early 2006.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle723266.ece

We also had a thread on this board about the story.

Debate on Danish Cartoons

In 1988 the Muslim world imposed a death sentence on author, Salman Rushdie , over his publication of The Satanic Verses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

Apparently the Muslim world is more sensitive to criticism than those of us in the west.

I don’t know if The Washington Post made the right decision, but it was their editorial call.

Locally, The Fort Worth Star Telegram has long struggled with Doonesbury placement. It was on the comic page, dropped, placed on the editorial page, put back on the comic page and except for Sunday, is now back on the editorial page. To appear “fair and balanced” the Star Telegram made the editorial decision to moved Mallard Fillmore to the editorial page and Dilbert to the business page.

Does the fact that the radical Muslims are willing to essentially “put out a contract” on a person who offends them mean that all Muslims are “more sensitive”? I think not – and I am not sure there are not others (religious groups) who could be “sensitive” – if they thought it could allow them to squash things like this cartoon.

Doing so imo was, and is a bad idea.