Security guard injured in Texas Muhammed cartoon conference

Danthus · 4 May 2015 at 16:52

Who is cheering?

Raz · 4 May 2015 at 16:52

I'm not concerned about attacking a belief if done in an appropriate manner. I'm quite active with inter faith dialogue and people have openly criticised my faith, the Quran and the Prophet without needing to mock anything. Respect invites respect.

Skunkworks · 4 May 2015 at 16:55

Raz said:
Yes.

When I was at school my friend drew a picture of a bully's mum and promptly got beaten up.

Muslims murder people over drawings and a few random mosques get torched. I guess they should have expected it, yes?

C.R.A.Z.Y · 4 May 2015 at 16:59

The usual suspects here!
Being 'glad' anyone is dead is pretty sick and heading down the same mind-set as the violent and barbaric terrorists they 'supposedly' despise so much!

I'm glad to say we live in a far more civilized country here where an event like this would have almost certainly been banned as it would have fallen foul of the sensible inciting racial/religious hatred laws that we have!

This whole horrible situation could have been avoided were it not for the idiots on both sides, all stuff like this does is cheapen human life

bitslice · 4 May 2015 at 16:59

It was a risky but useful stunt, Americans need to know that they have a fifth column of islamists living amongst them, so now they can stop pretending this kind of thing only happens in sandy toilets.
They are all over the UK and naturally they will be all over America, and any country that has a muslim population will now have the exact same problem. It was obvious drippy rainbow multiculturalism was never going to work, but sadly people have to die before anyone realises.

Raz · 4 May 2015 at 17:08

Skunkworks said:
Muslims murder people over drawings and a few random mosques get torched. I guess they should have expected it, yes?

Well perhaps its better to ignore past experiences and common sense.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with dialogue or intellectual debate but mocking isn't necessary. Using the old Freedom of Speech card doesn't work either otherwise as a society we wouldn't object to holocaust deniers and people who refuse to sell cakes to homosexual couples.

SciNeT · 4 May 2015 at 17:09

Mynight said:
Can you truely have free speech when imposing restrictions?

I'm personally disgusted by both parties in this aspect.

If you limit speech based on people being offended then there is no free speech, because there's always some idiot that takes offence at something, like the two Muslims who attacked that security guard and are now dead over a cartoon conference.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 4 May 2015 at 17:11

Indeed, next time you're in the cinema I dare you to jump up and start screaming fire and see how far that freedom of speech gets you.

Freedom of speech has limits, limits that help prevent retarded situations like the one in Texas funnily enough!!

RDM · 4 May 2015 at 17:27

Raz said:
I'm not concerned about attacking a belief if done in an appropriate manner. I'm quite active with inter faith dialogue and people have openly criticised my faith, the Quran and the Prophet without needing to mock anything. Respect invites respect.

Satirical cartoons have long been a part of western dialogue. How are they not an appropriate way to attack a belief system? What is an appropriate way to attack a belief system?

Raz said:
Using the old Freedom of Speech card doesn't work either otherwise as a society we wouldn't object to holocaust deniers and people who refuse to sell cakes to homosexual couples.

Neither of those is a freedom of speech issue. In the UK you can deny the holocaust as much as you want, you will get criticised, you will look stupid but you will not be arrested. The second was running a business in a discriminatory way. Again you are fine to say you don't like homosexuality (as many posters on these boards have on a regular basis) but you cannot refuse to serve someone due to their sexuality.

Danthus · 4 May 2015 at 17:32

RDM said:
Satirical cartoons have long been a part of western dialogue. How are they not an appropriate way to attack a belief system? What is an appropriate way to attack a belief system?

Depends on who you speak to.

Above&Beyond · 4 May 2015 at 17:33

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
The usual suspects here!
Being 'glad' anyone is dead is pretty sick and heading down the same mind-set as the violent and barbaric terrorists they 'supposedly' despise so much!

I'm glad to say we live in a far more civilized country here where an event like this would have almost certainly been banned as it would have fallen foul of the sensible inciting racial/religious hatred laws that we have!

This whole horrible situation could have been avoided were it not for the idiots on both sides, all stuff like this does is cheapen human life

They were going to kill someone for drawing a cartoon and you are blaming the cartoonist. Victim blaming.

Xordium · 4 May 2015 at 17:35

Raz said:
Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with dialogue or intellectual debate but mocking isn't necessary. Using the old Freedom of Speech card doesn't work either otherwise as a society we wouldn't object to holocaust deniers and people who refuse to sell cakes to homosexual couples.

So you'd ban a publication like Private Eye then?

I am not sure what your last sentence is on when taking into consideration the homosexual hotel furore and the fact that holocaust denial is not a crime in this country - you'll just have people thinking you are a bit of a prat if you proclaim those views in this day and age.

Lampooning establishment figures and institutions is part of the British characteristic. Now in this case it is clearly not just that and was designed to be provocative. But as I keep pointing out if people weren't so sensitive there would not be that opportunity for people to be so provocative would there.

Above&Beyond · 4 May 2015 at 17:38

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Indeed, neither do they though cheer and behave so flippant about said peoples death!

So you are to mourn those who wanted to shoot innocent unarmed people for drawing cartoons? I'm glad they are dead, let them rot.

dowie · 4 May 2015 at 17:38

Xordium said:
So you'd ban a publication like Private Eye then?

Prime Minister's questions would get a bit dull all of a sudden... as would various election campaigns too

:(Rhodri:) · 4 May 2015 at 17:51

Raz said:
Well perhaps its better to ignore past experiences and common sense.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with dialogue or intellectual debate but mocking isn't necessary. Using the old Freedom of Speech card doesn't work either otherwise as a society we wouldn't object to holocaust deniers and people who refuse to sell cakes to homosexual couples.

If they're preaching their views in a peaceful manor then no matter if I agree with them or not I feel they should have the right to do so. All major religions are mocked at one stage or another by various publications, in this day and age it shouldn't lead to bloodshed.

Tefal · 4 May 2015 at 17:54

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Indeed, next time you're in the cinema I dare you to jump up and start screaming fire and see how far that freedom of speech gets you.

Freedom of speech has limits, limits that help prevent retarded situations like the one in Texas funnily enough!!

you'd think wed have a limit on publishing a book that calls for people to be murdered for adultery, or drawing a prophet etc wouldn't you?

i mean if you tried that without a "god" behind the story you'd be done for inciting violence and hatred.

Raz · 4 May 2015 at 17:56

Xordium said:
Now in this case it is clearly not just that and was designed to be provocative. But as I keep pointing out if people weren't so sensitive there would not be that opportunity for people to be so provocative would there.

I agree with that part but some people feel strongly about certain things. For example, I'm not one for nationalism but wouldn't dream of burning a flag just to prove a point that it's my right under freedom of speech.

KIA · 4 May 2015 at 17:58

Thank god for the armed police. The Charlie Hebdo massacre could have been avoided if they were given a similar level of protection.

The threat posed by religious fanatics is very real, and will increase as they grow in number.

Efour · 4 May 2015 at 18:01

OhEsEcks said:
Saw this posted on Reddit and it gave me a chuckle.

Vulcan · 4 May 2015 at 18:05

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Indeed, next time you're in the cinema I dare you to jump up and start screaming fire and see how far that freedom of speech gets you.

Freedom of speech has limits, limits that help prevent retarded situations like the one in Texas funnily enough!!

Your first example is there because people become unnecessary injured as they fear for their life. It would also apply if you shouted "I have a bomb" in a crowded street. That's a very valid reason to curtail freedom of speech.

Someone going on a murderous rampage because they were offended is not a reason to curtail freedom of speech.

Raz said:
I agree with that part but some people feel strongly about certain things. For example, I'm not one for nationalism but wouldn't dream of burning a flag just to prove a point that it's my right under freedom of speech.

I feel strongly about many things too, IE freedom of speech. I'm not going to kill people who oppose it though, and we shouldn't pander to or defend those who do make threats.