So what do you think? Were the papers right to reprint the offensive cartoons? A related article: What are your thoughts on this issue?
Are they breaking Swedish or international law? I personally think that if a culture cant laugh at itself, its doomed to failure.
Seems all a bit pointless really, kind of like picking at a sore and complaining its not healing properly.
I personally agree with TFL and w1z4rd . But on the other hand, may be they should make new cartoons to emphasize the point instead of repeating the same ones.
Several years ago, a caricaturist drew Erdogan with an animal body. I don't remember which one right now. He sued them and of course he lost. After that the whole magazine's artists drew him as the whole animal kingdom.
Absolutely right in doing it desensitize muslims the way they desensitized christians the sooner the better. The positive side of it for muslims is that when they no longer react violently to percieved insults then said reactions can no longer be used against them. Honestly if your faith is strong then you could just laugh off any cartoon as the work of lost souls.
The sooner they stop placing a chip on their shoulder and daring cartoonists to knock it off, the sooner cartoonists will move on to another subject.
Will they feel guilty if something should "happen" to him or will they cheer in joy to celebrate the festive occasion? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. It's a demonstration of solidarity from the Swedish people. They are telling extremists that they won't be cowed into silence by thugs and nutcases.
What if a mentally ill or retarded person wanted to get a drawing/article printed in the paper that would lead to a knowingly massive negative reaction including deaththreats, wouldn't they be responsible for stopping it?
Another question: why does every newspaper open this issue with (bold): The prophet of what? Secular newspapers? Do they similarly cite "Jesus Christ, Son of God"?
Aren't there quite a few Middle-Easterners named Mohammed? I guess they are just trying to be very clear so as to not leave the readers in doubt as to whom they are referring to.
There's a far more respectful way to make the point. You could just publish simple, respectful drawings of Mohammed without having to go to the lengths of putting a bomb in his turban, etc. Islam forbids depictions of its alleged prophet, and the original point was supposedly to show that we will not allow this belief to trump our freedom to express ourselves. Drawing our old buddy 'Mo to show we will not be silenced by fundamentalist whackos = good Drawing 'Mo with a bomb in his turban to slap Muslims in the face = not so good, we've slapped them enough in other ways as is
