Suspects Shot Dead At $10K Muhammad Cartoon Contest

cybercoma · May 10, 2015

If you take the view that people should avoid doing stuff that makes other people mad, does that just apply to frivolous stuff like cartoons, or does it apply to weightier issues as well? What if it's cartoons about weightier issues (for example, political cartoons that excoriated the Catholic Church cover-up of child molestation? A lot of Catholics found those deeply offensive.) Who decides whether something is important enough to risk offending others?

In 2004, film-maker Theo Van Gogh was stabbed to death in Amsterdam because of a film he had made on the issue of how women are treated in Islam. His film offended some Muslims, and Van Gogh was murdered as a result. Should the next film-maker who wants to do a documentary about women in Islam self-censor himself? Should he say "I think this issue is pretty important, but it might offend somebody so I should just keep my opinion to myself"?

-k

It's not that people shouldn't do these things, it's that people shouldn't act very surprised when the crap all over something others find sacred. I'm not religious, so I don't understand the rationale behind it; however, there are things in my life that are sacred to me. It doesn't stretch the imagination to think of how incensed people would become if someone takes a shot at those things. If your aim is to offend people, then don't act surprised when they react.

You know what this cartoon contest reminds me of? Two kids in the back of a car on a road trip. One points his finger in his sister's face and says, "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" Eventually the sister punches him in the arm and he starts crying to mom and dad that she hit him.

Edited May 10, 2015 by cybercoma

drummindiver · May 10, 2015

It may be just a cartoon to you but to Muslims its something very different and the woman who did it should be fined. No person within the world but especially here in North American should make fun of any religion leader.

They absolutely should!

Why do religious leaders get a pass?

drummindiver · May 10, 2015

When this is put in the necessary context, it's easy to see just how perversely insignificant this tempest in a teapot is.

That same freedom of speech isn't extended to those in the countries that the USA has invaded, either militarily or thru the CIA.

Take for example the USA sponsored Indonesian genocide of 1965-66, where the US made up lists for military death squads and then checked off names when the people on those lists were bludgeoned, garrotted, beheaded (take note any ISIS detractors out there), shot, ... .

Now what possible right does the USA have to create death squads (and then check off on their list those executed at their behest) in other peoples' countries?

Where is the outrage over this Indonesian "perverse reward system is created when we suspend our free speech rights because certain people don't respect those rights"?

FFS. Every thread you post your anti-American rhetoric. For once can you stay on topic and not go off on one of your oft repeated rants?

On Guard for Thee · May 11, 2015

Or foreigners being charged in their courts.

And according to a 2008 SC decision, to foreigners being detained not on American soil.

Shady · May 11, 2015

Apparently you either didnt read, or failed to understand what the link says. The US constitution applies to you if you are in the US.

Like I said, the American constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens residing in other countries. That's undeniable.

Shady · May 11, 2015

No, I'm mocking the twits who thought it would be a good idea to give a hornet's nest a poke.

Just so we're clear here are you actually of the opinion that your so-called victims acted intelligently?

The so-called hornet's nest is a non-issue. That's like saying a girl wearing revealing clothing in a bar is poking a hornets nest if she gets raped. You and your ilk still don't seem to grasp constitutionally protected political free speech rights. That's like saying doctors that preform late term abortions are poking the hornets nest, and don't be surprised if they get killed. People like just enable more of this kind of barbaric behavior.

On Guard for Thee · May 11, 2015

Like I said, the American constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens residing in other countries. That's undeniable.

I think we all pretty much knew that. You didnt really need to state the obvious. It does nothing to change what was being discussed.

sharkman · May 11, 2015

It's not that people shouldn't do these things, it's that people shouldn't act very surprised when the crap all over something others find sacred. I'm not religious, so I don't understand the rationale behind it; however, there are things in my life that are sacred to me. It doesn't stretch the imagination to think of how incensed people would become if someone takes a shot at those things. If your aim is to offend people, then don't act surprised when they react.

You know what this cartoon contest reminds me of? Two kids in the back of a car on a road trip. One points his finger in his sister's face and says, "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" Eventually the sister punches him in the arm and he starts crying to mom and dad that she hit him.

People shouldn't act surprised if Muslims don't like the cartoons, but that doesn't give Muslim extremists and fanatics the right to kill. You lost me there.

You're saying that as you would get upset over things you hold dear, so would Muslims. But I'd like to think you wouldn't arm yourself and kill as many offenders as you can before they take you down. That's the mindset of the Muslim fanatics. To suggest it's a reasonable response baffles me.

Big Guy · May 11, 2015

To kimmy - My point is that there should be a good reason to irritate or cause hurt to someone. I do not think that taking comfort or enjoyment from causing emotional pain to others is a healthy pastime. Nothing justifies someone hurting someone else because of a perceived religious or social slight.

To others who seem to dislike or blame Muslims for your problems. I feel sorry for you. There are about a million Muslims in Canada and the percentage increases every year. You will be working with Muslims, your friends and children will have Muslims as friends. Your next boss may be a Muslim and a Muslim may end up joining your family. Your prejudice will effect the way you deal with them and make you more and more uncomfortable in your own social group. You are committing yourself to many years of unfounded and unnecessary discomfort and turmoil.

I really hope that the attitudes exhibited here have more to do with anonymous bravado then actual blind bigotry or prejudice.

sharkman · May 11, 2015

Why don't you specifically describe the attitudes you have the issue with? No one here is blaming Muslims for their problems, what are you talking about? People should dislike the extremist fanatic Muslims that think a picture should be a death warrant. Do you think a cartoon of Muhammad should warrant killing someone?

kimmy · May 11, 2015

It's not that people shouldn't do these things, it's that people shouldn't act very surprised when the crap all over something others find sacred.

I don't think Pam Gellar was surprised. I think that was kind of her whole point. I would have preferred she had been wrong, but unfortunately she was proven right.

-k

On Guard for Thee · May 11, 2015

I don't think Pam Gellar was surprised. I think that was kind of her whole point. I would have preferred she had been wrong, but unfortunately she was proven right.

-k

I fully agree you should be able to draw whatever you want, however I think her way of trying to make that point was rather, well, pointless, and possibly even nefarious, given her background of engaging in hate speech. Not sure how it in any way furthered anything positive with relation to the issue.

Smallc · May 11, 2015

Not sure how it in any way furthered anything positive with relation to the issue.

It's not hard to see. It's a direct pushback at religious extremism and an apparent attack on our human freedom of expression.

On Guard for Thee · May 11, 2015

It's not hard to see. It's a direct pushback at religious extremism and an apparent attack on our human freedom of expression.

I guess when you have extremism on both sides of the issue its not likely anything of value will result. I am sure there are those who will claim two dead mooks will have somehow improved things. Or will it have just kicked the can down the road as they say.

Smallc · May 11, 2015

I guess when you have extremism on both sides of the issue its not likely anything of value will result.

There is nothing extreme about peaceful expression, especially if it inconveniences no one, as in this case.

On Guard for Thee · May 11, 2015

There is nothing extreme about peaceful expression, especially if it inconveniences no one, as in this case.

Except her organization goes beyond peaceful expression, which is why she was denied entry to the UK.

Smallc · May 11, 2015

Except her organization goes beyond peaceful expression, which is why she was denied entry to the UK.

This demonstration doesn't.

On Guard for Thee · May 11, 2015

This demonstration doesn't.

Well obviously I wasnt referring to this situation with that post. My point is what did this situation actually accomplish.

Smallc · May 11, 2015

My point is what did this situation actually accomplish.

And I already gave you a simple answer. If you want to continue that logic though, we could extend that to any demonstration, pretty much ever.

On Guard for Thee · May 11, 2015

And I already gave you a simple answer. If you want to continue that logic though, we could extend that to any demonstration, pretty much ever.

Oh I would agree there have been various demos that accomplished little or nothing.

msj · May 11, 2015

It's not hard to see. It's a direct pushback at religious extremism and an apparent attack on our human freedom of expression.

That's what they are taking for granted.

Therefore it is us who are being unreasonable for wanting to pursue our free rights as if we need any other "good" reason to justify the pursuit of our right to free speech.

eyeball · May 11, 2015

It's not hard to see. It's a direct pushback at religious extremism and an apparent attack on our human freedom of expression.

It's a duty to offend vs a duty to be offended.

It always takes two to Tango.

Argus · May 11, 2015

Why don't you specifically describe the attitudes you have the issue with?

Just ignore him. It's his usual sanctimonious twaddle about how anyone who disagrees with him is a horrible person.

Argus · May 11, 2015

I guess when you have extremism on both sides of the issue its not likely anything of value will result.

There is a vast, canyonlike gulf between 'extremism' which says "Ha, ha, we're going to draw pictures of your prophet, nah, nah, nah, nah, naaaah, nahhh!" and extremism which says "I'm going to kill anyone who dares to insult my prophet!"

Don't equate the two.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Argus

Argus · May 11, 2015

It's a duty to offend vs a duty to be offended.

It always takes two to Tango.

No, it actually doesn't. Not when the "tango" consists of one dance partner shooting someone walking by the dance hall in the face because they feel affronted by something.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Argus