Double Standard

[DasFX]

Muslims are going nuts around the world because the beloved Prophet was caught with a lit bomb under his turban in Denmark.

We all know that their extreme protests are wrong and uncivilized, but are they wrong to be upset? Many of us in the "West" are saying that it was a joke and that they should lighten up.

Now Iran is holding a content to get the best satirical Holocaust cartoons. When Jews get upset will the "West" give them the same advice as we gave Muslims?

Is this wrong? I mean satirising the Holocaust? Why are people so touchy with it? I mean there have been a lot of genocide in our history when more than 6 million people have been killed.

In my opinion (I will definetely take a lot of heat for this), I think the Jewish groups have been milking the holocaust for many years. I would never say anything bad about Jewish people themselves, but I do have some harsh comments for the Israeli government, yet it almost seems that it would come across as anti-semetic to express them.

How long will the rest of the world have to feel guilty about the Holocaust. A typical exchange seems to be:

Non-Jew: Hey Israel, why are you firing rockets into sovereign Lebanon?

Israeli Gov: Remember the Holocaust, 6 million Jews were slaughtered.

Non-Jew: Oh, ya. That was so horrible, nevermind what I was asking.

Same goes for blacks in North America with slavery. Always ready to play the "but we were enslaved, forced to leave our beloved Africa and pick you damn cotton". Don't get me wrong here, slavery was bad and a difinete injustice, but I think it is time to get over it.

If you look at it, every nationality, ethnicitiy and religion has been the victim at some point in time and equally so lets all get over it and move on.

 

[I think not]

I don't think the issue has ever been they didn't have a right to get "upset" but rather the extent of their actions.

The Middle East has been publishing anti-semetic and anti-west cartoons for decades, this new cartoon they are planning about the Holocaust won't be anything new.

The Jews "may" protest and complain, I don't think they will hit the streets burning everything in sight.

 

[DasFX]

I don't think the issue has ever been they didn't have a right to get "upset" but rather the extent of their actions.

As long as this is true, it is fine. But some have brushed off Muslim anger as not having a sense of humour.

Personally I don't think you can equate an abstract ficticious cartoon about Mo and a mockery of a true event that killed 6 million people.

 

[I think not]

Well there is humor and then there is black humor, either way anything short of yelling fire ina crowded theatre shouldn't be a problem in my view.

 

[#juan]

Just to take another tack here.

How did the Saudis find out about cartoons in Denmark? Is the Danish newspaper in question sent to Saudi on a regular basis? Did a member of the Danish Muslim community send a copy to Saudi?

Denmark has a multi-million dollar trade business with the Arab world which is surely important to them. The Muslim protesters have taken the postion with Denmark that " Yer with us, (The peaceful Muslims), or yer with those filthy, infidal, pig dog, cartoonists who should be beheaded. This is a position that seems almost familiar. Of course any civilised country would never take such a position.

 

[sanch]

Here is an article in the NYT yesterday that explains how the Saudis became involved.

http://tinyurl.com/9bt7v

 

[Jay]

The Jews "may" protest and complain, I don't think they will hit the streets burning everything in sight.

Sure, I agree, but in Canada if you publish anything that sways from the "accepted truth" of the Holocaust, its called hate literature and you can be fined or put in jail.

They aren't without their problems.

 

[Mogz]

There's a big difference between drawing a few images of the prophet for a news paper editorial section, and drawing images of the holocaust. There was no malicious intent on the part of the author of the cartoons, the same will not be able to be said for those that draw the forseen images of the mass murder of over 6 million Jews and ethnic minorities from 1940-45.

Professor Peter March from St. Mary's Unniversity in Halifax has made an excellent point. While Muslims may not be allowed to depict the prophet, what about a person who does not follow Islam? I, for example, am an Athiest, so why should I be constrained by the laws of a religion I do not follow? Where do Muslims get off telling me, or any none-Muslim, what we can and cannot draw? This all comes down to fundamentalism once again. The Muslims we see ranting and raving on TV, even if this Counrty, are people so blinded by faith that they assume everyone around the globe should believe as they do. The Muslims in our socieities today, that behead captives, blow themselves up in markets, and burn other nations flags, are no better than preious oppresive groups such as the 3rd Reich or Soviet Empire. At a time like this, our Governments need to stand up and tell these groups that they need to sit down and shut up, however in the latter half of the 20th Century, Western Civilization has become a collective group of fence sitters. Rarely do we stand up for our rights and morals for fear of offending people. 7 of the 8 most industrialized and productive nations in the World are from the West, why are these nations so afraid to use their lofty position to slap down the people on this planet who endager everyones way of life? The only nation ever willing to speak up and utterly tell off another Country is the U.S., however they tend to go to excess at times

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Double Standard

While Muslims may not be allowed to depict the prophet, what about a person who does not follow Islam? I, for example, am an Athiest, so why should I be constrained by the laws of a religion I do not follow? Where do Muslims get off telling me, or any none-Muslim, what we can and cannot draw?

Exactly! They can have their laws and do as they please, but don't place them on me. If I wanted to be under Islamic law, I'd convert to Islam or move to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or whatever.

There are lots of Islamic laws, why don't they protest when they are broken.

Yo Muslims, guess what, I ate a delicious pork roast and had a beer yesterday; it was really gooooood!

Now come and try to burn down my house or my flag and see how you get bitch slapped with a pound of bacon and pelted with can of Molson Canadian!

P.S. I really wouldn't do that. Why would I waste good Canadian bacon and beer?

 

[Jay]

I hate to be the first to inform you Das, Molson Canadian isn't really all that good...feel free to toss it at them.

 

[FiveParadox]

Depiction of the Prophet

In my opinion, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) is just as serious as depictions of the Holocaust. One is a parody, and an intentional violation of the tenets of a religion, and another is a parody of a dark time in history. Both would be questionable publications, in my opinion — granted, that does not mean that they should not be permitted; but rather, that they should not be published for the purpose of spiting an entire people.

The Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h.) cannot be depicted in the Islamic faith; to depict him, and then rub it in the faces of Muslims, is an insult to them and an attack on their religion, plain and simple. While it may not be hate literature or material, the content thereof is highly questionable and should not have taken place without due consideration.

 

[The Gunslinger]

In the National Post on Tuesday, they posted a bunch of cartoons that the Middle East has posted in newspapers obout the Israelis. Those were, way, way worse than the ones the Danes posted about Muhammed.

 

[tracy]

The only people who rubbed it in the face of muslims were muslims themselves.

I find it surprising that people don't see the difference between drawing a picture of a person and denying the Holocaust. Whatever, like another poster already said, I doubt the Jews are going to start burning down embassies because of it. They're probably used to that type of thing by now.

 

[#juan]

One point that hasn't been raised

is, who knows what Mohammet looked like? Granted, we know the cartoons were about Mohammet, because they were asked to do cartoons about Mohammet. The figures in the cartoons looked like angry Arabs. Could have been any of them.

 

[nitzomoe]

from a legal standpoint publicising racist comics of jews in public is a hate crime, so would be the publication of a relgious figure in a discriminatory manner so as to connect all adherents to a faith as believers in terrorism. they are one and the same.

 

[JomZ]

One is a parody, and an intentional violation of the tenets of a religion, and another is a parody of a dark time in history. Both would be questionable publications, in my opinion — granted, that does not mean that they should not be permitted; but rather, that they should not be published for the purpose of spiting an entire people.

I remember when Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” was thought of in the same manner, and that the savagery of this movie subverted the true intentions of Christendom. Granted it is not meant as a derogatory jab at the Christian faith, but a savage portrayal of the last days of Christ.

And yet we also just recently allowed the distribution of the movie Karla, based on Karla Homolka. (Although not as extreme as the Holocaust, but still a dark time in history and a spit in the face of the families of her victims).

Although, the images have been quite controversial as of late, their have been hundreds of depictions of Mohammed in all forms of medium (Movies, Books, Paintings, Pictures, Editorial Pics, etc.) for the longest time. Some are respectful and some are derogatory. Yet these recent Danish ones have sparked the fire of Islamic hatred. I could post them here or a link to them, but I do not know if I violate any rules or so on because some of them are pretty controversial.

It begs the question of why now? For centuries this has been going on, but now is when there is revolt and demonstration by those of muslim faith. It astounds me that these were the ones that broke the proverbial straw.

 

[nitzomoe]

One point that hasn't been raised

is, who knows what Mohammet looked like? Granted, we know the cartoons were about Mohammet, because they were asked to do cartoons about Mohammet. The figures in the cartoons looked like angry Arabs. Could have been any of them.

thats a really good point, nobody had cameras back then. I think it has more to do with principle than anything though. Jebus isnt really the figure we see on crucifixes and tshirts that say "jesus is my homeboy" if anything he probably looked like present day arabs then anyone else.

if you go to africa, christians there believe in a black jesus, arab christians believe in an arab looking jesus and believe it or not but Indians christians(from india) believe in an Indian looking jesus.

it was so much easier during the reign of pontius pilot, back then you could get stoned for uttering gods name from Monthy Python and the Life of Brian

 

[darkbeaver]

The whole thing stinks of psyc/op.

 

[Mogz]

Yo Muslims, guess what, I ate a delicious pork roast and had a beer yesterday; it was really gooooood!

Hehe, that just made my day

In my opinion, the depiction of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) is just as serious as depictions of the Holocaust.

You're equating a cartoon with the mass and systematic murder of over 6 million people? At very best the cartoons are in violation of Islamic law...at best.

One is a parody, and an intentional violation of the tenets of a religion, and another is a parody of a dark time in history.

You really should read up on the issue, the cartoons weren't originally drawn for malicious reasons. However that said, the cartoons may be a violation of Islamic law, however the cartoonist wasn't Islamic, therefore not bound by said law. Furthermore, drawing a cartoon isn't illegal, I can draw a cartoon of a man humping a cow, and while beastiality isn't legal, the cartoon in and of itself isn't. Just because a sect of society follows a religion that doesn't mean the laws of said religion can thereby muffle our freedom of speech. That may be the case in backwards nations in the Middle East, but in the civilized world we don't play that way. Lastly, look at it like this. In the bible it says that man shall not worship any other god, however millions around the globe don't follow Christianity. So, if a Hindu believes in Bishnu, he's technically violating Christian law. Do you see Christians burning Indian flags and setting fire to Indian Consolates? Nope, why not? Because they're tolerant and respect the rights of other, regardless if they impinge of their own religion.

The Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h.) cannot be depicted in the Islamic faith; to depict him, and then rub it in the faces of Muslims, is an insult to them

And flying planes in to our buildings, and blowing themselves up on packed buses isn't an insult to us? I'm sorry, but the sad truth is no one really cares what Muslims think these days because they've degraded their own public image. Seeing seas of people chanting die Israel on nation TV, hearing about some suicide bomber blowing himself up in a market full of children, watching butcheres behead an innocent civilian on the web, those things arne't exactly endearing us to the Muslim society. When the cartoons were first published, there was no malicious intent. Afterwards papers re-ran them to demonsrate the freedom of speech. Muslims can be pissed all they want, that won't deter me from being able to say and do what I please. That's what makes this nation great.

 

[Shiva]

Re: RE: Double Standard

from a legal standpoint publicising racist comics of jews in public is a hate crime, so would be the publication of a relgious figure in a discriminatory manner so as to connect all adherents to a faith as believers in terrorism. they are one and the same.

No, they're not one and the same, because the cartoons on Mohammed critique ongoing political realities (where some Muslims are indeed committing crimes in the name of their religion) whereas cartoons denying the Holocaust are not factual.

Further, the intent of the two types of cartoons has to be taken into account- cartoons showing Jews and denying the Holocaust are purposely intended to stir up voilence against that community. Cartoons depicting violence in the name of Islam are critiquing that reality in the hope of stopping it.

They're entirely two different things.