British Muslims picket Downing Street in protest of Charlie Hebdo cartoons

[MrsTawdry]

So the Daily Mail report it as "thousands" whilst the Telegraph say "at least a thousand"

Can't find ANY other sources for it. How is this ok? Free speech yes...but...

We all have a conscience and it is very hard for me and I am sure I am not the only one who cannot understand why you would murder for what is essentially a difference in opinion i.e. changing religion etc

People of whatever religion need to think for themselves.

Well said BigRedB I like the way you were automatically told off for daring to suggest we might be being a little hysterical, by worrying so much that Muslims are exercising their democratic rights to a peaceful protest.

Speaking of surveys, i was surprised to see the Telegraph have a poll asking 'are you worried about the rising number of muslims in Britain'.

This seems particularly inciteful in the current climate.

Thetes some really vile vitriol on this thread which is disturbing to read. I would hate be a muslim in Britain at the moment.

You may want to look at the survey of British muslims that support some pretty unsavoury things then Cleanmachine as that could also be considered incitful, the problem is 'enlightenment' hasn't happend with this religion yet, and trying to protect it from this will cause problems further down the line.

I'm no Muslim myself but when I'm getting told by my Sikh friends and neiboughs that they aren't surprised with issues from a sub section within the Muslim community that poking the lion is probably a good tactic.

(Not talking about the far right fuckwits obviously)

'Enlightenment hasn't happened with this religion'

Just - do you think generalising like this supports your argument?

Do you think all muslims are one and the same?

@cleanmachine the comment by lurker about enlightenment was about the religion, not individual muslims.

Last summer there were impressive ads all over the tube by the mormon church, alongside ads for the "book of mormon". that church, of which I am no fan, rode that musical well even though it was mocked by it.

I think it'll be a while before we see a "book of muhammed" or some such thing.

The trouble is they want to stop nonmuslims publishing pictures of the prophet. Given that a dozen people were murdered for that, I think this protest is akin to inciting hatred against so-called blasphemers.
So this protest has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with bigoted dangerous censorship.
If you stopped publication of anything that might offend a group, nothing would be published. Religious beliefs should not get special treatment.
Believe what you want but don't impose your religion on others.

halfway, I agree with everything you say.

I have no time for organised religion of ANY stripe, but I do think more warmly of the Mormon church these days for the way they've been handling The Book of Mormon musical.

They obviously have their priorities right. Drawing pictures of their prophet, (by people who don't even believe in him so don't consider him holy) is wrong and they will march in their thousands about this offense but killing kuffars infidels is ok as there has been no mass march against the killing of cartoonists or Jews in the name of Islam. Honestly, I actually wonder how many Muslims secretly support the killings?

Who exactly is this They you refer to and who exactly said the killing of infidels is OK ? Give specific instances here please as this is important.

You're talking about a fragment within a fragment, within a fragment. The overwhelming majority of muslims' protests' are about respecting their beliefs and values within this multi-faith, pluralist society that we have.

Of course we have the RIGHT to offend them, but that doesn't mean we have a DUTY to offend them!

What nonsence halfwayupthehill! There's no such thing as unfettered free speech. Everything published is subject to a general "good taste" consensus. This is why you won't see cartoons mocking holocaust victims, or 9/11 victims falling out of the WTC. Or Japanese people drowning in the Tsunami. Thankfully, there is a line that cannot be crossed. Now is it so inconceivable that the mocking (and that does include the mere depiction) of Mohammed and Islam generally can't be considered off limits on the grounds of bad taste? Why is that so utterly outrageous? After all it causes enormous offence and upset. Could it be that you're thinking "ah but that's different"? Well - why is that?

As for your outrage over Muslims inciting hatred by putting together and participating in, a peaceful, lawful protest. Would you consider the (pro Israel) bloke that brutally attacked Respect MP George Galloway in the street guilty of hate speech too? Is he too a fanatic? Imagine the uproar if an enraged Muslim had attacked a pro-Israel MP in the street. Are those pro - Isreali protestors out in front of the Israeli embassy in Kensington protesting about the Palestinians intifada, guilty also?

sour, drawing the prophet is not about general good taste. It's about people finding it distasteful for religious reasons which are, or should be anyway if a pluralistic state is to exist and thrive peacefully, private.

Everything published is subject to a general "good taste" consensus.

where? When?

Now is it so inconceivable that the mocking (and that does include the mere depiction) of Mohammed and Islam generally can't be considered off limits on the grounds of bad taste? Why is that so utterly outrageous?

it's utterly outrageous because, like all religions, islam claims to be the true word of god. That claim MUST be challenged, because from it follows all sorts of nonsense, an example of which is that non-muslims can't draw a bloody stick figure and label it muhammed! And that's one of the least objectionable things about this creeping theocracy.

Well - why is that?

if you can't tell the difference between mocking people for being gassed by the hundreds of thousands or falling to their death from a burning building, and mocking someone's prophet or religion, then you haven't really thought about it hard enough. The difference is quite obvious.

sourdrawers

You have got this so badly wrong.

No, there is no "consensus of good taste" when it comes to publishing and neither should there be. There are hate laws, of course, but "good taste" is a matter of opinion and cannot be legislated against.

There is simply no comparison between cartoons about 9/11 and cartoons about Mohammed. Absolutely none. 9/11 and The Holocaust happened to actual human beings.

How dare you compare people who are a bit miffed because their "prophet" has been depicted with people who jumped out of a burning skyscraper? Get a bit of perspective for fucks sake.

A cartoon hurts NO ONE. Do you understand that? No one's life is at risk in any way just because someone drew a cartoon. Muslims may not like it, but that's their tough luck. We all have to live with things we don't like, we all have to put up with things that "offend" us - why should one group get a free pass?

It may be blasphemous under Islamic law to draw Mohammed, but this country is NOT subject to Islamic law and it never, ever will be. Nobody has the slightest business demanding that we adhere to some rule invented by a religion most of us are not part of. To insist that we do, whether we like it or not, is a blasphemy law by stealth and we have very important reasons in this country why we don't have any blasphemy laws.

Of course these people are entitled to peacefully protest. I am glad they did. I am glad we got to see the segregation of their community first hand, and I am glad they demonstrated very clearly precisely where their priorities lie.

12 people murdered and they protest because someone drew a cartoon. What a fucking disgrace. Their insistence that "Of course we don't condone the murders" is starting to sound increasingly hollow. They may not condone them, but they don't especially care either. Their hurt feelings matter more.

People who really cared about others might protest against ISIS. They might feel inclined to band together en masse and protest loudly against a group of fellow Muslims who are "misusing their religion". Has that ever happened?

Big fat NO. And neither will it. Because ISIS are misusing nothing, and most Muslims know that.

Sour, was that the best comparison you could make- suggesting that the nutter opportunistically punching Galloway in the street - is the equivalent of Isis and the planned murders of cartoonists and Jews.

I'm afraid it doesn't really work as an argument and it's embarrassing to hear.

Caffe What's embarrassing is seeing people lose their critical faculties in the aftermath of a terrorist attack the way you are; though I suppose atrocities are by their nature easier to denounce than understand.

But if you can put aside your outrage for a moment, do try to understand that the pitiable, misguided murderers, in Paris, Copenhagen or wherever else, do not speak for all Muslims, any more more than the IRA represented all catholics or Timothy Mc Veigh all anti libertarians. Even Hamas have condemned the attacks on C.Hebdo for goodness sake, so calm yourself.

BTW have you been out there protesting lately about the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian lands, who we support and defend consistently? Been out there waving your banners condemning the killing of innocent civilians in their tens of thousands in Iraq/ Afghanistan as a result of our invasions, recently? How about Britain's support for some of the most repulsive and anti-democratic regimes on the planet? Such as the Saudi's, Egypt, Kuwait, Suharto of Indonesia? Does this get you out of your armchair? This was all done in our name after all ....Thought not, but Muslims should get out there more eh?

Also I think you'll find that there is a perfectly good comparison to insensitive cartoons that are simply published for their incendiary effect and to put Muslims in their place, to any other depicting distasteful subject matter. As they cause deep offence, (not to you, clearly), but to those they are aimed at they are - deeply provocative.

I think I would respect the sudden interest of some people in free expression a lot more if, for example, you’d have stood with those who defended Samina Malik, the hip-hop loving “lyrical terrorist”, and WHSmith-cashier when she was locked up for writing nursery rhymes about Jihad, or if you had offered such a stout defence of the Nottingham Two when they were arrested and detained for downloading "terrorist material” – when what they were actually doing was researching militant Islam as part of their university course. Or wer out there on the streets on David Erving's behalf, when he was jailed in Austria for saying the Holocaust never happened?

And since you all hold freedom of speech so dear I expect you to join me in condemning the Council of Europe Convention decision that outlaws "public provocation to terrorism". Not the crime of actually inciting terrorist offences, you understand, but speech which “creates a danger” that such offences may be committed. European law drafted solely with limits on Muslim freedom of expression in mind. I bet these things don't raise your hackles quite so much though do they?

Finally JohnFarle either you deliberately misunderstood my mentioning the attack on Galloway, or it went over your head. My point was - would it amount to hate crime?

sourdrawers

It is YOU not me who are assuming that Islamic murderers speak for all Muslims.

To me, ISIS act on behalf of no one but themselves. They represent ONLY those Muslims that actively and vocally support them.

It is impossible for them to be representatives of people who do not agree with what they say and do.

Do you understand that? I do, but you apparently struggle with the idea.

Where you are getting confused (continually) is over the undeniable fact that ISIS do in fact represent the doctrines of Islam. Every barbaric act is condoned and mandated within the pages of the "holy book".

Thankfully for our planet, comparatively few Muslims live by the letter of the Koran/Hadith etc. Whether they justify that by claiming "misinterpretation" or "mistranslation" doesn't matter - that they are decent enough human beings not to want to live in a world where everyone has to surrender to the military might of Islam is enough for me.

So, the reality is that most Muslims do NOT represent Islam and Islam does not represent them.

The moment that you, or anyone else, takes "offence" on behalf of Muslims for any criticism of Islam...whether that's cartoons or anything else...then you are basically shovelling 1.6bn individual human beings into one basket and using a single word to say something about them.

I don't do that. Why do you?

Most of your post to me is irrelevant waffle.

People will print cartoons about whatever the fuck they like. Don't like it? Hot toasted tits. Get over it.

Brilliant posts CafeLatte, you've put into words what so many people are thinking. Thank you.

Where did you come up with the idea of a good taste consensus?

It means there is an often unsaid consensus on which determines what is good taste and what isn't. That isn't hard to perceive surely?

we don't have any blasphemy laws. Try taking another look. You'll find we do, though they're pretty sketchy I admit. That's why those that tried to have Salman Rushdie tried for his book - failed. The blasphemy laws as they existed then and now, do not stretch to Islam.

12 people murdered and they protest because someone drew a cartoon. What a fucking disgrace. Their insistence that "Of course we don't condone the murders" is starting to sound increasingly hollow. They may not condone them, but they don't especially care either. Their hurt feelings matter more.

And you claim not to be lumping all Muslims together? But accuse me of doing so? Remarkable! Perhaps when the dust has settled, you'll be able to have a more dispassionate, intelligent discussion?

You'll find it hard for anyone to agree on that.

The principle in the UK in my experience has been to "look away if you are easily offended."

The limits on free speech are usually judged to be incitement to violence.

Other people see the world differently to you sourdrawers, that isn't too difficult for you to perceive is it?

I dislike the idea of mocking someone's religion by the way. I just realise I have to tolerate it.

The principle in the UK in my experience has been to "look away if you are easily offended." The limits on free speech are usually judged to be incitement to violence.

I agree about this.

sour, laughing at Holocaust or 9/11 victims is just not comparable to drawing pictures of a figure who has significance and status in only one religion of the world's many.

The first instance is not, to use your phrase, in 'good taste' because we are all humans and we can all understand and be affronted by the idea of senseless killing.

The second instance is not in 'good taste' only if a) you're a member of that religious group and b) you adhere to the idea that drawing pictures of the figure is offensive. Which, as I understand it (and I'm genuinely sorry if I'm wrong), not all Muslims do.

I'm repeating myself, really, but in a healthy pluralistic society EVERYONE has a right to be offended by thins that offend their religious feelings, and equally EVERYONE has a right to speak freely about all or any religions, as long as it stops short of incitement to violence or religious hatred.

sourdrawers

You are making things up as you go along.

There are no blasphemy laws in the UK. There are laws regarding religious hatred, as there should be.

No one tried to prosecute Salman Rushdie. Some Muslims wanted him dead....and still do.

I was not lumping all Muslims together. I was talking about those who protested.

And there is no "unsaid consensus". Consensus indicates universal agreement, and we don't have that regarding "taste".

I once got accosted in the street over the Salman Rushdie issue. Just minding my own business, walking down a quiet road. I guess someone was lumping me in with him!