Karnal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:11pm:


Don't know if you have ever been to Istanbul, but that it my worse memory of the place. Beautiful city, friendly people... Every morning being worken up to about 100 mosques simultaneously erupting in calls to prayer. The entire city just becomes a complete wash of noise all overlapping each other. Speaker technology and mosques is the worse combination since obese women and spandex.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 1:31pm:


The US and Israel don’t bomb or kill to defeat personal expression. The old boy is right on this one.

I can’t fathom Brian’s comments that Charlie bears some responsibility because it was threatened with attack.

Charlie is an equal opportunity offender, but offense is not the point. South Park and the Chaser are equal opportunity offenders too. How can we cheer when the Chaser team get Osama bin Laden through APEC security, but accept it when networks pull a South Park Muhammed episode off the air? This is blatant hypocrisy.

We’re talking here about the image of Muhammed, not the racial or religious vilification of living people. No one cares when South Park charicaturize Jesus. Most Christians are able to understand the difference between blasphemy and satire. Those who don’t are free to have a good old moan, as they do.

Muslims are expected to do the same. If I was in Saudi Arabia, I’d be on my best behaviour - who wouldn’t be? I can’t see any excuses for not embracing religious debate and satire. From the cartoons I’ve seen, Charlie is not racially vilifying anyone. If we’re not free to debate Islam in a country with a ten percent population of Muslims, where? If we’re not free to charicaturize Jesus and Muhammed equally, where?

Muslims, just like Christians, should not protest this, they should embrace it. I’m yet to hear any compelling reasons why this should not be the case, and I’d love to hear any.

Karnal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:40pm:


No, they just bomb to defeat the reporting of the truth. I don't see how this is any better. I see no discernible difference between violently attacking the 4th estate to protect your cirmes and violently attacking to defeat personal expression.

Karnal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:40pm:


Then you and I must have a different understanding of racial vilification. My understanding, and its the same understanding of everyone I've heard comment on it, is that depicting "muslims" with distinct racial markers (semitic looks - hooked nose, arab appearance, and of course negative sinister facial features) - as opposed to using religious markers such as the Quran or beads etc - is racial vilification. I shouldn't need to point out that the vast majority of muslims are non-arab.

Karnal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:40pm:


embrace criticism and debate on religious grounds - yes, embrace racial vilification, no.

Quantum wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:26pm:


I’ve never been there, Quantum. I’d never want that in my neighbourhood, and I have a Muslim prayer hall on the corner of my street.The difference between Istanbul and my multicultural ghetto is the percentage of Muslims.

In the past, mosques and churches used to compete for the highest spire. Usually, the religion of the ruler settled it - no mosques to be built higher than churches, or vice versa. These are urban planning issues, not a clash of civilisations. Competition in the marketplace is usually a good thing.

It does, however, require an agreement on the rules of that marketplace. In.our society, freedom of speech is a rule. It has some limits, and we negotiate them. We don’t kill those who do things that are against the laws of our religion.

If we did, it would be a clash of civilisations.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:54pm:


If racial.markers in art were vilification (and banned), most art would not be seen. By your definition, the Merchant of Venice or Othello or the Mikado would all vilify.

Representing an Arab in visual form is not vilification. Hook noses and beards are just visual markers of race - how else do you signify an Arab? The image of Muhammed in Charlie is a benign, harmless picture. I can’t see anything sinister in it.

If you want to erase any representation of race in visual form, you might as well erase life. People are different. Showing this is not vilification, it’s representation.

It’s only vilification if such an image encourages violence - such as Nazi images of Jews or Western images of the Bosch or Tojo.

Karnal you seem to be missing the most obvious point - they are not depicting arabs, they are depicting muslims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:



And what's wrong with taking the piss outa Muslims? What is privileged about following Mohammed? Or about Mohammed hilself.

Why not ridicule THAT particular belief?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 5:28pm:



Well, he is wrong as are all other holocaust-denial laws across the world.