Im sure it was not meant as a provocation
Protest against Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) caricature in Oslo
- Thread starter VidaRed
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Im sure it was not meant as a provocation
yes, because they have nothing better to do with their time than provoke Muslims.
Noggies being provocative, now that's funny.
Noggies being provocative, now that's funny.
What reason could they possibly have to post it just to provoke a response? Did you read the article you just posted? It was posted as a part of a news story about members of the Norwegian PST Facebook posting the picture on that site.
I often agree that there's some unnecessary provocation of muslims going on, but no journalist in Norway should have to fear for his life just because he reported on a story regarding Islam.
I often agree that there's some unnecessary provocation of muslims going on, but no journalist in Norway should have to fear for his life just because he reported on a story regarding Islam.
those damn Scandinavians like winding up the muslims don't they!
Im sure it was not meant as a provocation
Have you actually taken to effort to insert 'PBUH' into the title and body of the article?
How pathetic that you feel the need to do that.
What's so pathetic?
Why are you so affected by a few letters?
Don't we generally add RIP to those loved ones who have passed away?
The demonstration was at my Uni actually.
Went down quietly and well.
Personally I can understand very well why they wanted a demonstration, and I'm glad they did it without causing any problems.
Norwegian along with Danish newspapers are making a bad habit out of Muhammed caricatures, in what I can only assume is a fight for the the freedom of speech. It's stupid, we all know they have the right to print the caricatures, but with such a right comes responsibility. Last time around our troops in Afghanistan were attacked and civilians were killed. Could well happen again.
Anyway, I think in a country like Norway, with a lot of Muslim immigrans we need to respect eachother, trust eachother and understand eachother. Every newspaper knows that our Muslims are hurt and angered by the caricatures so I honestly don't see why they don't just let it be.
Last thing the world needs is more hate and fear between Muslims and Christians/ahteists. These caricatures create just that IMO.
Went down quietly and well.
Personally I can understand very well why they wanted a demonstration, and I'm glad they did it without causing any problems.
Norwegian along with Danish newspapers are making a bad habit out of Muhammed caricatures, in what I can only assume is a fight for the the freedom of speech. It's stupid, we all know they have the right to print the caricatures, but with such a right comes responsibility. Last time around our troops in Afghanistan were attacked and civilians were killed. Could well happen again.
Anyway, I think in a country like Norway, with a lot of Muslim immigrans we need to respect eachother, trust eachother and understand eachother. Every newspaper knows that our Muslims are hurt and angered by the caricatures so I honestly don't see why they don't just let it be.
Last thing the world needs is more hate and fear between Muslims and Christians/ahteists. These caricatures create just that IMO.
I'm not affected in the slightest by the letters, people can do what they like. I just find it a tad pathetic that people feel compelled to do it. It's a clear symptom of religious brainwashing. Not to mention it is highly illogical and a bit it silly....Surely the one person who doesn't need peace wishing upon him in a Muslim's eyes is Mohammed, the greatest prophet of god?
And yes, people often do use RIP as a mark of respect for loved ones who have passed away, but I don't think anyone in their right mind feels compelled to write it every time they write that person's name...even going as far as to edit a news article to include it. Pardon me for finding it a bit mad.
I personally think they could have covered the story without printing the picture.
Had they left the picture out, then no Muslims would feel hurt and nothing would be said. They obviously knew this though.
It is provocative, they know it but it creates a story and they sell more. Journalists live by the freedom of speech as well so they'll push that in front of them at all times, ignoring other norms - like treating others with respect.
I absolutely agree that they should be never be threatened or risk any harm. And they are within their rights legally to print whatever they want.
It's the lack of common sense and respect when fulfilling this right I dislike personally.
This wasn't a "look what we can do" story, though. This was a story about how an official Norwegian organ had been indirectly involved in the posting of caricatures. It's reasonable to assume that people who read the story would want to see what all the fuss was about.
That's because they likely believe there is no life beyond the present.
I'm sure once any of my loved ones pass this earth I will always wish them peace in the hereafter. If you think I'm mad then that's your prerogative mate.
They could have written "A link on a PST webside (or facebook was it?) contained images of Muhammed betrayed as a pig."
There was no need to print the picture. The article would make just as much sense without it. It wouldn't sell as much though, and it wouldn't create a story.
Anyway, as journalists who have the freedom of speech, they also have a responsibility. One thing is a peaceful demonstration in Oslo, that's ok. But then these pictures will be used by extremists in Yemen, Afghanistan etc and young men over there will get another version of this story. They'll hear that we are disrespecting them, their religion etc. Just like Meymaneh in 2006 when young frustrated Afghans were lead to believe that it was Norway and ot a Christian magazine in Norway printing caricatures. Norwegians soldiers had to protect their base that day, and civilians lost their lives.
I'd like to think that a responsible newspaper director would think about the big picture and weigh up the possible scenario that migth happen against the need to print a picture to further tell a story.
It creates hate and divides us. It is harmful to the integration of our immigrants, it puts more pressure on our troops in Afghanistan, it threatens our expatriats and it makes Norway a terrorist target. So many good reasons for not using your freedom of speech, and a using common sense and decency instead.
All IMO of course.
Firstly, you said this is a sign of religious brainwashing. Actually for an atheist all believers are brainwashed and by other greater issues, gestures and signs. So I fail to see how those 4 letters specifically indicate that religion brainwashes people. I mean there are other bigger things that one can use to say we are brainwashed.
Concerning why Muslims say -pbuh- after any prophet's mentioning -not just Mohammad (pbuh) btw- is a sign of gratitude to those men we believe suffered a lot for humanity. Let me clarify that by saying pbuh is not a prayer to the prophets , it's like a title for them (can't find a more proper descriptive word than "title", sorry for that I hope you get the meaning).
Your opinions are very sensible Ruben. There is very little gain.
There are elements in the media seeking to exploit this current issue to pursue their own mischievous agenda to provoke a negative reaction amongst Muslims. Almost all Muslims will ignore such provocations, however there will always be a few individuals who will take extreme measures leading to further action and provocation. It will end up spiralling out of control with no eventual victors.
Imagine you're an editor with common sense and scruples. Imagine the economy is in the crapper, gallows humor abounds about using excess subscription forms for winter fuel, staff meetings consist of cowardly executives dropping not-so-subtle questions designed to gauge your opinion on who in the office is dead weight, with obvious lay-off and CYA overtones.
So, intelligence insulted, conscience at a constant red-alert, and bosses shoving quarterly numbers in your face and demanding that you strike a balance between integrity and results - never mind that every concession you make sees them pushing the balance point farther and farther towards the latter - what were once no-brainers worth a wry smile become literally life-and-death decisions.
Is this an over-imaginative attempt to manufacture a sympathetic view? Maybe. But one of the real obstacles to our ability to emerge from the other side of our latest technological adolescence with an actual understanding of its workings is our lack of effort in trying to examine any issue from every angle in a society in overdrive, pushing itself to establish more and more angles in a self-absorbed belief that its outmoded ideals can keep up with the throughput.
If every modern human started saying to the media, "Stop talking to me like I'm from the 19th century. Stop regurgitating the old thinkers just to prove you've read something," if we started saying that, then we'd stand a chance at making some progress towards some new societal construct that future generations could build on, one that's actually valid in today's global context instead of as outdated as pocketwatches. But no. That would be something new. And new is scary. No one wants to say something new. We talk because we like to feel that we know. And to try and come up with something new feels all too much like admitting that we don't know shit.
So instead of trying to expand into new modes of thinking, we just keep giving up, taking the easy way out, falling back to all the familiar categories - racism, nationalism, creeds penned in times when ships sailed by windpower - all this in an increasingly complex network where there are no longer two but a thousand sides to every story.
dick and head. use in whatever order you feel like.
The story was about a caricature posted by Norwegian officials, the natural thing would be to illustrate the story with pictures. Dagbladet chose to use the caricature in question which I fully support because it was natural in the context. If we choose to censor our media to cater to religion, where do we draw the line? Should we stop every article that might upset a given religious group, or only those articles that upset a given religious group to the point of violent threats?
I have nothing against Muslims, or any other particular religion for that matter although I am an atheist and do not share their faith, I support their right to practice their religion in Norway as in any other country. I do however strongly disagree with censoring the media. It's a very slippery slope if you allow religion to have a say in what is and is not appropriate coverage of news. I applaud Dagbladet for not being scared into silence and as much as i appreciate that religion is a sensitive area I cannot find anything wrong with what Dagbladed did. Nothing at all.
I have nothing against Muslims, or any other particular religion for that matter although I am an atheist and do not share their faith, I support their right to practice their religion in Norway as in any other country. I do however strongly disagree with censoring the media. It's a very slippery slope if you allow religion to have a say in what is and is not appropriate coverage of news. I applaud Dagbladet for not being scared into silence and as much as i appreciate that religion is a sensitive area I cannot find anything wrong with what Dagbladed did. Nothing at all.
Good post, I'd go along with that.
So you're on the side of the people protesting are you Sults?
sensible post that - congrats
Personally I'd just let dogs bark.
Those wanting to protest are well within their rights.
I have a simple rule in my personal life regards to free speech
When faced with such dilema I ask myself "can I" do it, then ask myself "should I" do it?
When faced with such dilema I ask myself "can I" do it, then ask myself "should I" do it?
Free speech and humour is OK but portraying Muhammad as a pig is damned well offensive IMO. Can't blame anyone with strong religious beliefs protesting.
This is the whole entire point of this debate in one sentence.
These are exactly my thoughts on the matter. It had been a different matter if there hadn't been any context to the posting of the caricature, and it was just done in a sort of "look at what we can do" manner. If there'd been a big story about someone posting a swastika and Jew-hostile slogans on a similar site, then I'd fully expect the paper running the story to provide a picture of it, to gain context.
Is it? I thought it was originally about the paper's intent to provoke.
Sad to see people arguing on the same side of freedom of speech/expression and such but thinking they're somehow opposed. The papers have every right to print, anyone offended has the right to protest. That's grand, no one should have a problem with that.
Vida took issue with the paper's actions but are they aggressive enough that they will be met, perhaps in the opinion of some deservingly so, with real violence as the news story suggests?
I don't think I disagree with any of my fellow Norwegians (Caveman, NiMic) on Dagbladets right to print the caricature Dr.Dwayne.
I'm just saying I wish they wouldn't have. It creates a problem that serves no one.
As yet the protests are peaceful. The Muslim immigrants in Norway are not very extreme anyway. The problem reaches further though, to other countries where extremists do exist.
I'm just saying I wish they wouldn't have. It creates a problem that serves no one.
As yet the protests are peaceful. The Muslim immigrants in Norway are not very extreme anyway. The problem reaches further though, to other countries where extremists do exist.
I just don't see why they couldn't have just explained it. Knowing full well what implications posting the picture would have.
Like I said earlier I think it was done to create a story. Sell more papers etc.
Fantastic idea. The most conservative religion on the planet is using the left wing softness against oppressors.
Theoretically, what if they did that and someone still protested saying that even describing the picture was offensive? Where do you draw the line? That is my point. It should never be up to religious groups to determine what is and is not appropriate to print without offense. Maybe the protesters should take a moment and consider that the freedom Dagbladet has to print these pictures are the same freedom they are enjoying during their protests and if they got their way with regards to religious censorship of freedom of speech they may not have been able to do so.
I actually had to read it twice to believe that you wrote that.
I understand it's a difficult line to draw. However, We live with censorship constantly. When is it editing, and when is it censorship? Many publications refused to print images of Abu Ghraib arguing it would likely result in the recruiting terrorists and the likely deaths of America Soldiers. Now would you not argue that the media was being responsible?
How about we go further with this debate and say some Islamic publication printed obscene images of the Pope or Mother Teresa. Do we seriously believe some fanatical Christians would not take offence and take the law into their own hands?
Where do we stop with all this nonsense?
Where do we stop with all this nonsense?
When people demand that the media shouldn't be allowed to make that decision themselves it's censorship. When the media decides it does not want to print it, it's editing. Simple as that.
My whole argument here is that it should be up to the media to decide what they can and can not print as long as it is in accordance with the law. If the rage and protests were aimed at the people who created the drawings (and it is obviously) then I can understand that to some extent, although certainly not threats or attacks but the anger shown at the newspapers I can't understand.
Or we could be as offended when extremists send us videos of them beheading westerners as they are by graffiti.
The probably would, and depending on the circumstances I would support or not support the publication's decision to publish them. I would, however never under any circumstance support the fanatical Christians in question. I don't care for fanatics, regardless of religion and I certainly don't care for such fanatics taking the law into their own hands.
Scenario A: Said obscene pictures of the Pope or Mother Teresa (or both
) are circulating in official Pakistani circles, and a Muslim newspaper printed these pictures as a part of an article covering that story.Scenario B: Said obscene pictures of the Pope or Mother Teresa (or both
) are printed as a joke intended to poke fun of Christianity.In scenario A I would support the newspapers decision to print the pictures but in scenario B I would find it unnecessary although perhaps amusing. In both cases I would support the Muslim publications right to print the pictures.
It's not that simple.
We have hate speech laws, incitement of hatred laws, and libel laws amongst many others. We have government agencies constantly deciding what is censored all the time for I would hope mostly for good reason.
Yes I am aware of that but the moment religious caricatures are banned for fear of reactions from the religious extreme, the freedom of speech have taken a huge blow and I'd consider it a victory for the hate-fueled extremists. Far, FAR worse is tolerated every single day in newspapers all over the world but if we suddenly become so afraid of extremist reactions from certain religious groups that we adhere to their views of what is and is not appropriate for print, then IMO it shows that violence and threats works perfectly good to silence the free media.