Protest against Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) caricature in Oslo

[Nistelrooy10]

You don't get to be an editor of a newspaper by being an idiot. This person knew what the reaction would be. It would have been easy to describe the image and get the same effect.

I'm not going to guess the motivations behind publishing this. It could have been some kind of internal pressure like Hungrywing hypothesized, or it could have been that the editor was too cleaver by half and tried to hide behind the fact that he was only publishing an image that was on facebook; or may be it was something else. I see two sides on this topic, both arguing from the silly angle that they knew exactly why the publisher did what he did. Whatever the real reason, it was a stupid thing to do.

There is a vast difference between censorship and self-censorship. We use the latter every day. While I believe protests are somewhat ineffective and silly, they have every right to use this method of free speech to protect themselves. It's a slippery slope once a minority allows others to unfairly demonize them. Blacks in America and Jews everywhere have organizations that fight tooth and nail public discrimination and rightfully so, they know where it leads. This is something Europeans often times fail to grasp.

Do you see the difference in which Muslims used free speech to protest something they didn't like and achieve something constructive, and the way the newspaper used free speech to achieve....absolutely nothing - unless you consider (whether intentionally or unintentionally) promoting hatred, bigotry, and divisiveness constructive and something that is desirable?

 

[Sultan]

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.

What I'm saying, and Ruben has been commenting is the consequences of such freedoms when taken to extremes. I don't think Muslims are demanding they should be exempt from criticism in any publication. There are thousands of books written criticising the faith. The media have a duty of care and responsibility. Acting responsibility would go a long way in building bridges amongst communities - which in my opinion trumps cheap images either designed to create hurt or printed in good faith.

 

[Dyslexic Untied]

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.

Mate, I'm not saying anything different. The media decide what they can and can't print. But they also should have the responsibility to decide what they should and should not print.

It's not about censorship. I'm against censorship. But what I am trying to say is that these days it would do the world good to respect eachother a bit more. Specially with Muslim immigrants, who are in a difficult situation in Europe. When we know they will be offended, then is it still clever to post pictures of their prophet as a pig just to give some meat to an article?

 

[Sultan]

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.

This is not about extremists.

You have no idea the hurt it is likely to cause hundreds of millions of normal Muslims and the likely consequenses of relations between your country and the Islamic world.

 

[Sultan]

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.

You could also very easily define the editor/journalist responsible being a hate filled extremist. Who knows their inner intentions?

 

[Laphroaig]

Good posts Ruben.

Siv Jensen, the leader of the (racist) right wing party Frp, second biggest party in Norway, now claims that her prediction of the islamification of Norway (really!) has come true. Nothing surprising about that, she is a terrible human being, what baffles me is that she wants our foreign minister to take a stance. This (Norwegian muslims who feel persecuted) is surely an internal matter. The fact that she thinks this is an issue that must be dealt with by our foreign minister suggests they aren't and shouldn't be part of Norway, and thus she supplies yet another reason for muslims in Norway to feel persecuted.

 

[Laphroaig]

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 agree to some extent with this. But I rather think that dagbladet replicating the caricatures was the last drop. The fact that fecking PST are posting these on facebook or whatever, is far more insulting that Dagbladet using them to illustrate an article about PST being a bunch of racist twats.

I think we'd do well to perform some thought experiments when thinking about this matter. How would we react if it wasn't muslims that were made fun of, but black skinned people, perhaps Senegalese immigrants portrayed as chimps? Or gay people portrayed as, uh I dunno, something insulting?

 

[Lester Freamon]

This is not about extremists.

You have no idea the hurt it is likely to cause hundreds of millions of normal Muslims and the likely consequenses of relations between your country and the Islamic world.

I'm sorry but I can't understand why Muslims all over the world should be so offended by a newspaper reporting the news. If their feelings are hurt, then so be it. It may sound blunt but sometimes people are offended, sometimes I'm offended too but I don't want the media to edit themselves according to my particular view of the world.

I think it's much much worse when a Muslim appeal held in the streets of Oslo concludes with the words "We don't want to see another 9/11. This is not a threat but a warning." I consider that as a direct attack on values I hold very highly and It's unacceptable rhetoric to use because it's a thinly veiled threat that if the media don't censor them selves according to religion it will lead to violence. If it came to violent reactions to this I would not hold the newspaper responsible in any way, shape or form. If, as you say, hundreds of millions of Muslims gets very hurt by this then I think they need to accept the fact that the entire world does not hold the same views as them on what is appropriate and morally correct to print.

And I would also like to add that I don't support the views of Siv Jensen as quoted by my fellow Norwegian further up on the page.

 

[Lester Freamon]

I agree to some extent with this, although I'm with Ruben and Sultan in disagreeing with censoring the media, but to say that is not to say they should print the caricatures though.

I rather think that this was another drop in the glass. The fact that fecking PST are posting these on facebook or whatever, is far more insulting that Dagbladet using them to illustrate an article about PST being a bunch of rascist twats.

I think we'd do well to perform some thought experiments when thinking about this matter. How would we react if it wasn't muslims that were made fun of, but black skinned people, perhaps Senegalese immigrants portrayed as chimps? Or gay people portrayed as, uh I dunno, something insulting?

That's my entire point here! Why is the rage directed at Dagbladet? What did THEY do wrong but document some very inappropriate e-mails circulating the PST? I'd have much more sympathy with the Muslim protests here if they were angling it that way but they are not. They are attacking a newspaper for reporting a story about Muslims and the story was not in any way an attack on Muslims, rather the opposite.

And if those examples you list were to be true, would you consider Dagbladet racist for re-printing them. I sure as hell wouldn't but I would seriously question the ones distributing them in the first place.

 

[VidaRed]

I'm sorry but I can't understand why Muslims all over the world should be so offended by a newspaper reporting the news. If their feelings are hurt, then so be it. It may sound blunt but sometimes people are offended, sometimes I'm offended too but I don't want the media to edit themselves according to my particular view of the world.

I think it's much much worse when a Muslim appeal held in the streets of Oslo concludes with the words "We don't want to see another 9/11. This is not a threat but a warning." I consider that as a direct attack on values I hold very highly and It's unacceptable rhetoric to use because it's a thinly veiled threat that if the media don't censor them selves according to religion it will lead to violence. If it came to violent reactions to this I would not hold the newspaper responsible in any way, shape or form. If, as you say, hundreds of millions of Muslims gets very hurt by this then I think they need to accept the fact that the entire world does not hold the same views as them on what is appropriate and morally correct to print.

And I would also like to add that I don't support the views of Siv Jensen as quoted by my fellow Norwegian further up on the page.

Muslims have only protested when Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) has been vilified and abused. They're not protesting on the streets every time something is said against them.

 

[Laphroaig]

I think it's much much worse when a Muslim appeal held in the streets of Oslo concludes with the words "We don't want to see another 9/11. This is not a threat but a warning." I consider that as a direct attack on values I hold very highly and It's unacceptable rhetoric to use because it's a thinly veiled threat that if the media don't censor them selves according to religion it will lead to violence.

Do you have a link to this appeal? I don't see that quote alone as a threat at all, but as a warning. I suspect that Scandanavia is coming across as a muslim-opposed region, and there are terrorists who may target us.

That's not the only reason why we shouldn't provoke muslims of course, the more important one is that we need to promote respect, as advocated by Ruben in this thread, if we are to close the divide that is being created by people like Siv Jensen and Mulla Krekar.

 

[Lester Freamon]

Do you have a link to this appeal? I don't see that quote alone as a threat at all, but as a warning. I suspect that Scandanavia is coming across as a muslim-opposed region, and there are terrorists who may target us.

That's not the only reason why we shouldn't provoke muslims of course, the more important one is that we need to promote respect, as advocated by Ruben in this thread, if we are to close the divide that is being created by people like Siv Jensen and Mulla Krekar.

I don't think we should provoke Muslims but I do think that many Muslims need to accept that sometimes something they find offensive will be printed. In this case however I do not accept that Dagbladet did anything wrong, or something that should even be deemed offensive but if someone found it offensive, live with it.

I would hate for Scandinavia to be considered a Muslim-opposed region because I don't think that's the case at all. We do have a very high level of tolerance on what is allowed in the media and I think that may be misunderstood by some. But the same ones taking offense should realise that the liberal legislation in regards to freedom of speech is available for everyone, regardless of religion.

 

[Laphroaig]

That's my entire point here! Why is the rage directed at Dagbladet? What did THEY do wrong but document some very inappropriate e-mails circulating the PST? I'd have much more sympathy with the Muslim protests here if they were angling it that way but they are not. They are attacking a newspaper for reporting a story about Muslims and the story was not in any way an attack on Muslims, rather the opposite.

I haven't been in Norway while this has been going on, haven't seen or listened to the news or read proper newspapers, so I can't claim to know fully what's going on, what has really fuelled the anger this time, etc. The caricatures have been printed in noggiepapers before, because of dodgy intentions I am sure, and muslims have voiced their opinion against it. Maybe they feel that Dagbladet doing this all over again, after all has been said and done, is a needless and silly provocation. In my opinion the protests should be directed against the general islamophobia in Norway (there's no denying the destructive existence of that), and not against Dagbladet illustrating an article by printing the caricatures, I agree with that.

And if those examples you list were to be true, would you consider Dagbladet racist for re-printing them. I sure as hell wouldn't but I would seriously question the ones distributing them in the first place.

I agree. But I also suspect that the media, politicians and people generally would be a lot more sympathethic to the protests if they were related to this sort of rascism, or to homophobia, even if they slightly missed the target (by going after the newspaper rather than PST)?

By the way, can someone point me towards what was printed this time? I haven't seen it.

 

[Sultan]

I'm sorry but I can't understand why Muslims all over the world should be so offended by a newspaper reporting the news. If their feelings are hurt, then so be it. It may sound blunt but sometimes people are offended, sometimes I'm offended too but I don't want the media to edit themselves according to my particular view of the world.

I think it's much much worse when a Muslim appeal held in the streets of Oslo concludes with the words "We don't want to see another 9/11. This is not a threat but a warning." I consider that as a direct attack on values I hold very highly and It's unacceptable rhetoric to use because it's a thinly veiled threat that if the media don't censor them selves according to religion it will lead to violence. If it came to violent reactions to this I would not hold the newspaper responsible in any way, shape or form. If, as you say, hundreds of millions of Muslims gets very hurt by this then I think they need to accept the fact that the entire world does not hold the same views as them on what is appropriate and morally correct to print.

And I would also like to add that I don't support the views of Siv Jensen as quoted by my fellow Norwegian further up on the page.

I'd say it's an unnecessary provocation at a time when tensions are running high. I hardly think this issue is about freedom of speech. It's the "in thing" to demonise and vilify the Muslims in Europe, almost all of whom just want to live peacefully alongside their respective neighbours and earn a living.

The likely purpose of printing the image is very likely to say "up yours" to millions of Muslims across the world and an excuse the bigots need to come crawling out from their holes. Muslims across the world are against these images being printed because they are clearly intended to insult a person who is universally loved and respected.

As for the comment made on 9/11 the moron should be prosecuted. There is no justification for such behaviour.

 

[Lester Freamon]

I agree. But I also suspect that the media, politicians and people generally would be a lot more sympathethic to the protests if they were related to this sort of rascism, or to homophobia, even if they slightly missed the target (by going after the newspaper rather than PST)?

For me that is not slightly missing the target, it's failing to turn up at the range and accidentally dropping your gun in the toilet. It's two fundamentally different angles.

 

[Laphroaig]

For me that is not slightly missing the target, it's failing to turn up at the range and accidentally dropping your gun in the toilet. It's two fundamentally different angles.

Yeah I know, I'm just being careful because I haven't actually read Dagbladet's article.

 

[Lester Freamon]

I'd say it's an unnecessary provocation at a time when tensions are running high. I hardly think this issue is about freedom of speech. It's the "in thing" to demonise and vilify the Muslims in Europe, almost all of whom just want to live peacefully alongside their respective neighbours and earn a living.

The likely purpose of printing the image is very likely to say "up yours" to millions of Muslims across the world and an excuse the bigots need to come crawling out from their holes. Muslims across the world are against these images being printed because they are clearly intended to insult who is universally loved and respected.

As for the comment made on 9/11 the moron should be prosecuted. There is no justification for such behaviour.

We are totally opposed in regards to the intentions of the article but I can accept that people doesn't agree with me. I had a longer debate with a good friend of mine (who happens to be a journalist) and he shared the same views as you and Ruben.

The images were probably intended to insult, or at least a very poorly constructed joke, but as I said, reprinting them in Dagbladet was not, imo, intended that way. Quite the opposite. I think I've said all I have to say on this matter now.

 

[Sultan]

For me that is not slightly missing the target, it's failing to turn up at the range and accidentally dropping your gun in the toilet. It's two fundamentally different angles.

You do realise most of those demonstrating will not have understood the intentions of the newspaper. They just likely saw or heard of the image and came out to show disgust. I don't know about the make up of immigrants in Norway, but with utmost respect most are likely to be very simple minded people to understand the nature of the article. This is where intellectuals should have a responsibility to guide the community.

 

[narnar]

This will gather far more press than necessary unfortuntely.

 

[nimic]

Yeah I know, I'm just being careful because I haven't actually read Dagbladet's article.

I haven't either, because I simply couldn't find it. Usually it would be linked to in every other article connected to it. The simple fact that it isn't should say something about their "provocation". If they were only out to provoke, I'm sure they would have made sure the article was readily available from anywhere.

 

[Count Duckula]

Newspapers self-censor all the time. This was nothing more than provocation for the sake of selling papers and drumming up publicity, safe in the knowledge that whatever happened they'd profit. Either they'd sell a few papers and earn some money, or they'd predicatably provoke outrage and then act like deeply offended purveyors of truth. It's not their fault Muslims can't take a joke! Harumph!

But newspapers constantly decide what they can and can't print. They won't print anything remotely graphic in a sexual sense, even if it's relevant. Can you imagine the Daily Mail posting a massive picture of a cock in an article about penis size? Or a close-up of an attached clitoral ring in a body-piercing piece? Not a chance.

Fact is, the paper knew this would offend a large group of people and in doing so win them some publicity and support from the Muslim-haters (a group that, horrifyingly, seems to be growing by the day). The media self-censors constantly, so to say they should be able to post what they like is laughable. Yes, they should, but it's not like they're constantly printing controversial things and the Muslims just happen to be the only ones who take offence - they deliberately posted this knowing the response it would cause.

 

[topper]

Newspapers self-censor all the time. This was nothing more than provocation for the sake of selling papers and drumming up publicity, safe in the knowledge that whatever happened they'd profit. Either they'd sell a few papers and earn some money, or they'd predicatably provoke outrage and then act like deeply offended purveyors of truth. It's not their fault Muslims can't take a joke! Harumph!

But newspapers constantly decide what they can and can't print. They won't print anything remotely graphic in a sexual sense, even if it's relevant. Can you imagine the Daily Mail posting a massive picture of a cock in an article about penis size? Or a close-up of an attached clitoral ring in a body-piercing piece? Not a chance.

Fact is, the paper knew this would offend a large group of people and in doing so win them some publicity and support from the Muslim-haters (a group that, horrifyingly, seems to be growing by the day). The media self-censors constantly, so to say they should be able to post what they like is laughable. Yes, they should, but it's not like they're constantly printing controversial things and the Muslims just happen to be the only ones who take offence - they deliberately posted this knowing the response it would cause.

I think this is a too extreme example to be really justified in this argument. More realistic would be if Jesus Christ was depicted in the same way as Mohamed was. It would cause lots of offence - for sure - but certainly nothing like happened in this instance.

 

[Laphroaig]

I've been updated.

1. The article was about things posted on PST's (the Norwegian national security service) official facebook site. I think someone posted a link to the painting, and in general the forum contained loads of racist comments (not only against muslims, but also jews). It is, in other words, very poorly edited.

2. It wasn't a caricature, it was an offensive drawing. It simply depicted a pig writing the Koran, and the pig was presumably Mohammed (the name was written on the pig). Inredibly juvenile and witless. It can only be interpreted as an insult, nothing at all like a caricature.

3. The protests today were not aimed at Dagbladet, although the protests yesterday probably were. But seeing as this wasn't a caricature at all, but simply an insult meant to mock muslims, and that Dagbladet didn't need to print it to illustrate the events, and I can not see any reason why Dagbladet should print it, not least to put it on their front page. The protesters' message was "yes to free speech, no to racism." It seems wholly warranted to me.

Dagbladet is consistently referring to the drawing as a caricature. Would any of you call it (see the above link) that?

 

[Sultan]

It would cause lots of offence - for sure - but certainly nothing like happened in this instance.

Exactly what happened at the march which was so bad?

A few thousand protesters peacefully marched in Oslo and carried banners with texts like "We are Muslims, not terrorists" and "Stop the campaign against Muslims".

 

[Sultan]

I've been updated.

1. The article was about things posted on PST's (the Norwegian national security service) official facebook site. I think someone posted a link to the painting, and in general the forum contained loads of rascist comments (not only against muslims, but also jews). It is, in other words, very poorly edited.

2. It wasn't a caricature, it was an offensive drawing. It simply depicted a pig writing the Koran, and the pig was presumably Mohammed (the name was written on the pig). Inredibly juvenile and witless. It can only be interpreted as an insult, nothing at all like a caricature.

3. The protests today were not aimed at Dagbladet, although the protests yesterday probably were. But seeing as this wasn't a caricature at all, but simply an insult meant to mock muslims, and that Dagbladet didn't need to print it to illustrate the events, I can not see any reason why Dagbladet should print it. The protesters' message was "yes to free speech, no to rascism." It seems wholly warranted to me.

Thanks for the update. It's very similar to what I had heard.

 

[nimic]

Exactly what happened at the march which was so bad?

A few thousand protesters peacefully marched in Oslo and carried banners with texts like "We are Muslims, not terrorists" and "Stop the campaign against Muslims".

Slogans that are completely removed from the issue at hand. In what way did Dagbladet suggest they were terrorists? If anything it did the opposite, by critically reporting on a site that was rife with racism! Perhaps their slogans should have been "Don't offend us", or "Don't post insulting drawings of Muhammad".

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The press have a right to print, the protesters have a right to protest. Done.

 

[Laphroaig]

That's not all though, it's only the legal part of it. Whether the press should print, is also a moral and social question. And there are issues concerning the protest, such as if they miss the target or not, as well as those issues that are moral or political. Etc.

 

[Joga_Bonito]

I'm a hypocrite on this issue, because I don't believe that Christianity, or any religion or bad idea (in my opinion, of course), for that matter, automatically deserves respect. I do, however, believe that all people deserve a minimum amount of respect, and that's where it gets tricky, because some groups equate their beliefs with what it means to be a person (their intrinsic worth, in other words). That's a problem, in my opinion, because if all people did it, criticism, which is the corner stone of western democracy, would suffer greatly. And it is open to abuse, as well, of course, by people who wish to protect their beliefs from criticism, and who have a very different view of free expression than most people.

Having said all of that, I am far more sympathetic to Muslim concerns, particularly in Europe, because I am cognizant of the fact that at least some of the things that are said and done are motivated by racism and an unacceptable level of intolerance. Muslims are, on average, already more disadvantaged and disenfranchised in Europe than almost all other groups, and I would rather that we concentrated on helping them to integrate fully in to our societies than to alienate them further. This incident may not have been motivated by malice, but others incidents almost certainly have been.

The fact is that once groups are integrated, most of these issues will likely become a non-issue. It is an empirical fact that the more well integrated immigrant populations are, the more like the rest of the population they become and the more they identify with the broad range of values that their country is defined by. It is the lack of identity and feeling of being discriminated against that causes most of the problems in the first place.

It's certainly true that some Muslims have used relatively benign incidents to fan the flames, but so too have others. What is also true, however, is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims and non-Muslims simply wish to live together and to understand each other. Therefore, even if an incident like this is not meant to harm, we should be careful about causing unnecessary problems.

Once Muslims do feel integrated in to our societies (and many do, already), then we can have the debate about what is acceptable on both sides and what is not.

 

[sammsky1]

The press have a right to print, the protesters have a right to protest. Done.

But they dont when its done to make deliberate right wing gestures intended to inflame. I would have thought that the world would have learnt where the sensitivities lie. Its got feck all to do with freedom of speech and the 'right to print' and you know it.

This was just a very cheap and desperate Page Ranking gag by this newspaper to gain notoriety and fame. I hope this story gathers pace and the editors of this newspaper are held fully accountable for their decision.

 

[topper]

Exactly what happened at the march which was so bad?

A few thousand protesters peacefully marched in Oslo and carried banners with texts like "We are Muslims, not terrorists" and "Stop the campaign against Muslims".

what campaign and and were not fatwas taken out against the people involved at the beginning of this sorry episode and in fact attempts made to implement them.

 

[Sultan]

what campaign and and were not fatwas taken out against the people involved at the beginning of this sorry episode and in fact attempts made to implement them.

You seem to be confusing events. Please do keep up!

 

[Dyslexic Untied]

I've been updated.

1. The article was about things posted on PST's (the Norwegian national security service) official facebook site. I think someone posted a link to the painting, and in general the forum contained loads of racist comments (not only against muslims, but also jews). It is, in other words, very poorly edited.

2. It wasn't a caricature, it was an offensive drawing. It simply depicted a pig writing the Koran, and the pig was presumably Mohammed (the name was written on the pig). Inredibly juvenile and witless. It can only be interpreted as an insult, nothing at all like a caricature.

3. The protests today were not aimed at Dagbladet, although the protests yesterday probably were. But seeing as this wasn't a caricature at all, but simply an insult meant to mock muslims, and that Dagbladet didn't need to print it to illustrate the events, and I can not see any reason why Dagbladet should print it, not least to put it on their front page. The protesters' message was "yes to free speech, no to racism." It seems wholly warranted to me.

Dagbladet is consistently referring to the drawing as a caricature. Would any of you call it (see the above link) that?

I was aware of this. I've called it a caricature because it's a drawing in a newspaper, I didn't think too much about it though.

I think the drawing is extremely offensive to be fair, probably worse than those published before. And I still think Dagbladet could have covered that story just by reporting it, without using the picture.


Like I said in my first post in this thread, I understand very well that young muslims in Norway are protesting. They are doing a good job as well. Fridays protest was for young men, while women and children protested on Saturday I think. The message was clear from all of them, all they want is respect and to live without their prophet being offended.

As long as it's done as peaceful as they have been doing it this week they have my support. Hopefully we can avoid more of this pictures and caricatures.

 

[Dyslexic Untied]

Pictures and a video of the protest can be seen here. As you'll see it's quite peaceful.

Ny demonstrasjon i Oslo - Nyheter - Oslo - Aftenposten.no

 

[topper]

You seem to be confusing events. Please do keep up!

please do answer the question - what campaign ......rsvp

 

[MikeUpNorth]

But they dont when its done to make deliberate right wing gestures intended to inflame.

Uh, yes, they do. The whole point of freedom of speech is that speech should be unrestricted, whether or not we like what is being said.

Are these drawings offensive? To Muslims clearly they are, and obviously it's not the type of thing I like. But since when should causing offence be a consideration of what can be printed?

If we're talking about causing offence, let me tell you that many gay people, and those who care about gay rights, find some of the content in the Qur'an very offensive. Likewise, many feminists find parts of it very offensive. So, unless these protesters think that they should consider editing the Qur'an to remove the offensive aspects, forgive me if I find their stand more than slightly hypocritical. They want to censor other people from offending them, yet presumably have little concern for the multitude of offences caused by their own chosen book. People in glass houses...

In a society different people will find different things offensive, and the overriding principle is that you have a right to offend people, and a right to take offence. In Britain our libel laws and granting of super-injunctions, which have been in the press recently, are a far greater threat to our democracy than people being offended. The real dangers are in restricting freedom of speech; look how much is still classified in the Iraq inquiry for example. Libel laws and injunction laws need urgent reform, and, in my opinion, the various laws curbing free expression go far too far.

 

[Sultan]

please do answer the question - what campaign ......rsvp

I'd think that question might be better directed at the person holding the banner up in Oslo. Alternatively some reading of events over the last eight years might help.

 

[Lester Freamon]

I'd think that question might be better directed at the person holding the banner up in Oslo. Alternatively some reading of events over the last eight years might help.

"Stop the campaign against Muslims"? Like topper I say what campaign? You have argued sensibly so far but to use that silly slogan as some sort of proof of Muslim discrimination in Norway. You state time and time again how offensive all this is to Muslims, have you ever stopped to think how offensive it is to me? I've no less right to feel offended than the Muslims have just because they have a religion and I don't. I feel terribly offended when Muslims target homosexuals in certain parts of Oslo because it's "their" part of the city. I feel terribly offended when during a peaceful protest in Oslo the key speaker gives Norway what he calls a "warning" about another 9/11. We are so afraid of stepping on people's toes, so damn afraid to be offensive but why? Because certain groups seem to kick up a bigger stink than others when offended? Should only certain groups be allowed offended? Or should the media cater to every single religious view on what is and is not acceptable to print? It's a simple question, Sultan..

 

[Dyslexic Untied]

"Stop the campaign against Muslims"? Like topper I say what campaign? You have argued sensibly so far but to use that silly slogan as some sort of proof of Muslim discrimination in Norway. You state time and time again how offensive all this is to Muslims, have you ever stopped to think how offensive it is to me? I've no less right to feel offended than the Muslims have just because they have a religion and I don't. I feel terribly offended when Muslims target homosexuals in certain parts of Oslo because it's "their" part of the city. I feel terribly offended when during a peaceful protest in Oslo the key speaker gives Norway what he calls a "warning" about another 9/11. We are so afraid of stepping on people's toes, so damn afraid to be offensive but why? Because certain groups seem to kick up a bigger stink than others when offended? Should only certain groups be allowed offended? Or should the media cater to every single religious view on what is and is not acceptable to print? It's a simple question, Sultan..

First of all, the homosexuals targeted in Oslo is something I've never even heard of. And I've been living in the city for quite a while. I've lived in Tøyen as well, which is probably the part of the city that has the highest percentage of Muslims.

Second of all. That warning about terrorist acts was no more than what I've said earlier in this thread, that the chance of a terrorist act increases with the amount of times we print such pictures. Did you get offended at what I said as well?

Point is that you don't really care about any of these things, neither do I. We live in a perfect country, we have everything we want and religion and God is not important to us anymore.

Muslims come to Norway, they are given the worst jobs, they don't make close to as much money as we do and basically live in poorer areas where their kids go to schools that are not as good as schools in the western part of Oslo. They are new in a different culture and the two thing they have is eachother and their religion. They are forced to give up parts of their culture, and to abide by Norwegian laws they must give up on some of their religious culture as well. Muhammed means so much to them that you and I can probably never understand it.

Offending him is not equivalent to offending Jesus. Probably more close to offending your girlfriend, your mother, your father etc.

I can easily see why Muslims in Norway are "easily" offended. I think they feel that they are second in line with everything in Norway, and that atleast their religion should be left alone.

You talk about that we shouldn't be so afraid to offend this and that. Why should we offend at all? I just don't get the point. Like I said earlier, Dagbladet could covered the story by writing about it, and all this would be nothing. No one would be offended and Muslims and Norwegians would have one less obstacle in their way to understanding and respecting eachother.

 

[Sultan]

"Stop the campaign against Muslims"? Like topper I say what campaign? You have argued sensibly so far but to use that silly slogan as some sort of proof of Muslim discrimination in Norway. You state time and time again how offensive all this is to Muslims, have you ever stopped to think how offensive it is to me? I've no less right to feel offended than the Muslims have just because they have a religion and I don't. I feel terribly offended when Muslims target homosexuals in certain parts of Oslo because it's "their" part of the city. I feel terribly offended when during a peaceful protest in Oslo the key speaker gives Norway what he calls a "warning" about another 9/11. We are so afraid of stepping on people's toes, so damn afraid to be offensive but why? Because certain groups seem to kick up a bigger stink than others when offended? Should only certain groups be allowed offended? Or should the media cater to every single religious view on what is and is not acceptable to print? It's a simple question, Sultan..

Follow my conversation with Topper again buddy! Topper seems to have got this latest episode confused with the Danish cartoons.

I have very little knowledge or make up of Muslims in Norway to make such rash comments. I specifically commented the reason why the person was carried the slogan "Stop the campaign against Muslims" should be directed at the person carrying the placard.

I also remember saying in my previous post the person carrying the 9/11 placard was a moron and should be prosecuted. The rest of the post was me asking Topper to do some reading on events over the last eight years - that comment was not directed at Norway but on an international level.

Muslims or Islam should should not be free from critical analysis.

PS: I don't feel offended by criticism of Muslims or Islam. I however do feel offended by unwarranted and despicable images of someone I hold very dear.