Re-examining the Danish cartoon controversy


by Sunny
3rd February, 2006 at 4:57 am    

I have very mixed feelings on the current controversy sweeping media and blogland. Whether people out there really give a crap is of course a different matter. This is an attempt to address several points that others have made, as well as provide a roundup of some interesting opinion.

1) To re-iterate my position: I fully believe in defending freedom of speech and expression, but also believe that it comes with responsibility. So gratious attempts merely to offend others is not that worthy of respect IMO.

2) It is a given fact that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are highly sensitive of portrayals of their gods and prophets. To assume these cartoons would not have offended someone is naive, specially when some cartoons imply that the prophet himself was a terrorist bomber. The question then arises: when is it right to offend (because it will happen sooner or later)? IMO – when its for the right cause. I don’t see any underlying cause here that kicked it all off.

3) Jyllands-Posten also has an interesting background. The centre-right paper was “infamous for its sympathy for fascism and understanding of the German Nazi dictatorship”, according to Wikipedia. And while I’m not saying all Danes are Muslim haters, the climate there is sometimes quite hostile towards Muslims. So does the paper have an ulterior agenda? I would argue so.

4) Danish and other European governments cannot be held responsible for what their press publishes, a fact that has completely missed most of the Middle Eastern hot-heads busy burning flags and pointing guns at Europeans. But it’s worth noting that while the Danish govt is busy sending out its message across Arab media as we speak, it initially rebuffed any dialogue with Arab governments. Talk about silly backtracking. Either they should have done it initially or stuck to their guns.

5) The idea however that Middle Eastern regimes can dictate to Europe about religious tolerance and freedom of speech is totally laughable, a fact many Muslim bloggers have chosen to ignore, apart from some like Sepoy. He also cites previous examples of depicting the prophet and says “if ‘any’ depiction of the Prophet is an assault on the sensibilities of the global Muslim, than we have more to worry about than bad Danish cartoonists.”

6) Reformist Muslim puts it more succintly when arguing: “it seems to me that the unfortunately inevitable threats of violence has made this into a false, ‘our free speech v. dangerous fundamentalists’ debate…. The major problem with this is that seems to make apologising for the original cartoons into an appeasement of the threat of violence which doesn’t do anyone any good.

7) Thabet has an excellent roundup of opinion from many Muslim blogs, clearly showing that they are not as hysterical as everyone is trying to make them out to be.

8) Svend White makes a good point on his blog:

An aside. This is where I have issues with the shows of solidarity by various other European media in republishing those cartoons recently. Not only are they allowing Jyllands-Posten to duck responsibility for sparking this crisis–its actions displayed grievously poor judgment, if not outright bigotry– in running those cartoons, but these other European media are creating the impression in the Muslim world that, you guessed it, Europe is united in supporting attacks on Islam and spitting on Muslim sensibilities. It is doing so at the very same time that it’s incessantly preaching to Muslims about religious extremism, anti-Semitism and other unsightly social phenomen in Muslim societies. Muslims will understandably wonder at their silence on open prejudice and Islamophobia.

9) A point that some Muslims miss is this. The longer-term issue is not if there should be more blasphemy (there inevitably will be), but how people choose to react to it. Any violent reaction is instantly condemned (rightly) and unless that is dealt with, there will always be tension. At least people don’t get killed in Europe for disrespecting God.

10) Let’s get this clear. We started with one newspaper with a publicity stunt. It escalated with a bunch of rabble-rousing Danish Muslims looking to get themselves better known by conveniently inserting some extra cartoons into the original twelve so they could get the brothers suitably pissed off. It has since turned into a massive pissing match with each side trying to make out they are more righteous.

While I’m on the side of FoS, to pretend there are absolutely no taboos within European media is ludicrous. It is just a matter of which ones you choose to break.

11) UPDATE: Nosemonkey is just as annoyed and more blunt about it, with links to others who feel the same.

12) UPDATE 2: The Jordanian paper that re-published some cartoons with a call for better perspective on the issue has sacked its editor unfortunately.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Media,Religion,The World






156 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Global Voices Online

    [...] The recent controversy over the cartoons perceived to be ridiculing Islam have stirred a whole volley of posts in India. Pickled Politics makes some important points and rounds up reactions from various other blogs. The Predicate has an excellent roundup of the entire situation and says The Islamic radical extremists have escalated this issue, literally begging for a backlash and public outcry. Had they just politely asked for an apology, they would have probably gotten it and the issue would have ended there. With bomb threats and boycotting Danish goods and fatwas and other potentially violent means, they have pushed people to respond. Now, many more images of Mohammed will show up, public will be more defiant (as people just love to demolish sacred cows). [...]




  1. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 5:15 am  

    Hang on dude…. that wasnt a publicity stunt. Some guy who wrote a book on Prophet wasnt able to find an illustrator as some hot-heads had issued a fatwa against him. Hence in response to that edict; JP issued those cartoons.

  2. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 5:17 am  

    ‘n heres the supporting link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A5re_Bluitgen

  3. NewsGuy — on 3rd February, 2006 at 6:05 am  

    I’ve been blogging extensively on this issue in my own blog, “Anti-Racist Losers” since it came out 4 months ago and have some counter points to your claims:

    2. Do a Google Image Search for “Mohammed” you’ll see plenty-o-picks of our pal Mo’. Why there isn’t a raging jihad against the GoogleGuys remains a mystery.

    4. European governments do have “hate speech” laws that outlaw such things. So there is a responsibility on the government to do something, but what exactly should be done is the question. This is a valid form of political expression regardless of who’s whinging about it – and it is likley the issue’s merit is warranted by the level of whining going on.

    5. I agree. Muslim people have no right to dictate our way of life, and vice versa.

    8. The Muslim world is rife with anti-semetic, anti-American and anti-western propoganda. An argument can be made that everyone is guilty of a double standard on this issue.

  4. Rohin — on 3rd February, 2006 at 7:08 am  

    Hmm, I’m not sure I agree with you on everything Sunny. But I haven’t been to bed yet so I don’t want to get into anything too intellectual till I’ve got some snooze!

    News today – Indonesia’s in on the act, storming the Danish embassy, burning the flag, as a hardliner calls for an “international day of anger”. Ordinarily that sort of thing sounds right up my street. But this is just getting stupid now.

    Anyway, back to work!

  5. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 7:51 am  

    yeah, those googleguys should definitely be getting it too!

    Check out http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

    For those easily provoked into outrage and offence-taking, there are an embarrassing multitude of targets to take out. From South Park to the Supreme Court, Rodin to Rashid al Din : enjoy!

  6. Tim — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:06 am  

    Does it not bother anyone that the cartoons were really, really bad? I don’t mean morally bad – I’ll leave that for others to decide. I mean technically, aesthetically lame. And not particularly funny either.

    And the three made-up ones (Muhammad with a pig’s nose, etc) were even worse, by all accounts…

  7. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:10 am  

    Sunny ,i understand that you are trying to be fair to all sides, but your point number three quotation about the Jyllands-posten is a touch dishonest- that was in the 1920′s! It may still be a conservative, centre-right newspaper just like say, the Daily Mail, but the editorial line is hardly fascist and has not been for a LONG time. The current editor has explained the context in which they published the cartoons and their motivation for doing so, and the cartoons themselves depicted an array of disparate views, including one severely critical of the whole project in the first place and let us all not forget that there was a long article accompanying the cartoons which discussed the newspaper’s agenda quite openly. Do explain how the Danes are “sometimes quite hostile towards Muslims”, please, with more detail than you have so far.

  8. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:20 am  

    “The question then arises: when is it right to offend (because it will happen sooner or later)? IMO – when its for the right cause. I don’t see any underlying cause here that kicked it all off.”

    You are not quite the advocate for free speech you make yourself to be since you require a utilitarian reason for free expression- ie it must be for the RIGHT reason and cause; it must have the RIGHT social agenda etc The problem is : by whose reckoning?
    Thus those who sit on the fence equivocate about the merits of Behzti or the Ayaan Hirsi? Van Gogh short film (which was totally amatuerish imo) without quite realising that discussions of content, value, motive et al is quite beside the point.

  9. Chris — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:54 am  

    Tim is right – the cartoons are pretty bad.
    But if being unfunny was the problem I would be organising my own day of anger against Steve Bell and Martin Rowson.

    On the substantive issue I agree with Vikrant – the reason why the newspaper commissioned these cartoons was to draw attention to the increasing problem of self-censorship which we saw recently here with the Tate not exhibiting a sculpture with the Koran, Bible and Talmud embedded in glass. Hardly anything insulting about that.
    Of course “Piss Christ”, “Jerry Springer The Opera” are all fine…

  10. Bijna — on 3rd February, 2006 at 9:20 am  

    If Muslims get upset (as in world wide mass hysteria) by these silly cartoons, EVERYTHING will upset them.
    All the more reason why Iran should never get nukes.

    The Danish embassy in Indonesia has been stormed by 300 moderate Muslims. The radical Muslims were not available, as they were busy beheading schoolgirls and generally starting world war 3.

  11. Bertie Wooster — on 3rd February, 2006 at 9:31 am  

    Yeah, it’s like The Satanic Verses again, these cartoons are terrible (like the Verses) but one still has to defend the right to publish them/it. It’s just unfortunate that the lack of ability or even humour (how much better would the South Park guys have done it?) means that we end up defending something that actually we don’t like very much. Which possibly explains some of the equivocal nature of the response.

    I’d argue quite strongly (and have in other places) that the urge to ‘blaspheme’ is an essential part of ‘western’ (ie protestant christian) culture, and is the driving force that allows us to question, well, everything. There’s a downside, but the ability and willingness to criticise, deconstruct and re-imagine the words of religious leaders from two millennia ago (albeit with a few burnings along the way) is at the base of western ‘progress’. It’s not something we should have to defend.
    And the reaction of some from the Islamic world patently plays into hands of extremists over here (what a concatenation of news items last night, straight from Nick Griffin accusing Islam of being an intolerant hateful religion into this story), but as with xianity, the quiet scholarly voices are drowned out by the loud furore of those seeking simplicity in their religious views.

  12. Steve — on 3rd February, 2006 at 10:35 am  

    If there had been no threats of violence I would have been against publishing these cartoons in the UK. Now that there have been threats, the UK press should publish (essentially point 6 above).
    Respect should be earned, not demanded at gunpoint.

  13. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 10:37 am  

    Nice round up Sunny. Agree with your points.
    All sides need a good slap. Notwithstanding the disengenuous shit stearers on the side-lines. ;-)

  14. sonia — on 3rd February, 2006 at 10:41 am  

    The Leader Column expresses it very well i think:

    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/comment/0,,1701365,00.html

  15. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:05 am  

    Such Pious reactions.

    Nobody should expect the Western world to cower on this. Message to the Islamists: Threaten us? How laughable! We will laugh at you.

    It’s extremely unfortunate that moderate Muslims are caught up in the crossfire. My beef is with those with intentions to threaten my liberty with a Caliphate and Dhimmi status. I have no beef with anyone else. And I am truly sorry for those of good heart who are offended.

  16. squared — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:07 am  

    While I’m on the side of FoS, to pretend there are absolutely no taboos within European media is ludicrous. It is just a matter of which ones you choose to break.

    Nicely summed up.

  17. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:10 am  

    Morning j0nz

    Got a bellyful of bile you need retching?
    Slight correction: the laughing preceded the threats.

  18. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:11 am  

    Well when a mosque was torn down in far off Ayodhya, Hindu temples got firebombed in UK! You can never really fathom these fundy types. Check uncyclopedia entry on Islam:

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Islam

    Then there was some porno site called “Secret Life of Prophet Mohammed”; didnt see many Muslims raising such a heck over it.

  19. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:16 am  

    Morning Siddarth!

    Slight correction: the laughing preceded the threats.

    Ahem. Really? Attacks on the USA on the 9/11 were precipitated by laughing at Muslims? Well actually you’re probably not far off in diseminating the motivations behind Bin Laden. In his fatwa he did declare that US was swore enemies due to the humilation the Muslim world had suffered in the past 80 years. Damn pesky non believers! How dare they mock! How can they not see the truth!

  20. reformist muslim — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:19 am  

    Would like to point out that the cartoons were not just highlighting self-censorship.

    One of them had the ‘Prophet’ wearing a turban with ‘La Ilaha Illallah..’ which is actually a bomb. I think it is this equation of the Prophet with a terrorist which helps to dehumanise muslims. Of course violence in response to this is not justified but that diverts attention from the underlying sentiments.

    One thing to bear in mind when discussing this is that the situation with regards to Muslims is very different in Denmark. In that country xenophobia is becoming increasingly mainstream and so takes on a different position then if the cartoons had been published in the UK.

  21. David — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:21 am  

    It is a given fact that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are highly sensitive of portrayals of their gods and prophets.

    So are Christians. Not all, but plenty of them. I don’t think it’s right to turn this into an Asian thing.

    Christians can be just as touchy when their opinions/icons aren’t afforded the respect they think they deserve. It’s a common problem when you are convinced that your opinions are derived from an infallible supernatural source.

    It doesn’t really leave much room for dissent.

  22. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:22 am  

    J0nz,

    How far do you wantto take that relativist bollocks? 11 Century? Get together with Mirax and Vikrant as well, why don’t you, to throw in South Asian communal grievances as well. Warn you though, you’ve got your work cut out for you because you’ll soon find your hands are just as bloody as anyone elses. ;-)

  23. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:23 am  

    I know that the picture does not mean all Muslims are terrorists. I think I know what’s going on here.

    There are a lot of stupid racist people on the planet. They will interpret this to mean muslims = terrorists

    I feel exactly the same way when people like Sheikh Yussef al-Qaradawi call for ‘a day of anger’. There’s a lot of stupid racist people out there, who could interpret this to mean kill Europeans.

    So Europeans AND Muslims are caught up in the crossfire between ideologies. This is the battle for the centre ground.

  24. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:28 am  

    I’d rather mourn the passing of Smash Hits.

  25. Don — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:30 am  

    So I guess the Guardian won’t be syndicating this;

    http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=18

  26. Bijna — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:37 am  

    I see the words “racist” and “xenophobia”.
    That is not what is going on.
    The correct word is “islamophobia”.

  27. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:37 am  

    You’ve got to larf, aint’cha?

  28. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:39 am  

    Fear of a Muslim Planet.

    Hell No. What a brotha know.

  29. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:44 am  

    Or this

    Well it seems those pesky Europeans have finally learnt their lesson…

  30. Rohin — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:45 am  

    Hear hear David, well said.

  31. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:48 am  

    “Get together with Mirax and Vikrant as well, why don’t you, to throw in South Asian communal grievances as well.”

    Siddarth, I would like you to show where I have EVER played south asian communal politics. I am not a part of any clique here on PP, and certainly not one that includes Jonz the fuckwit and a 16- year old ranter. Nice try at dodging the debate by flinging shit around but no go.

  32. Rohin — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:49 am  

    What was that film The Message about? I thought Anthony Quinn was Mohammed in that, but it seems I was wrong now that I’ve looked it up. Apparently that film was filmed with two casts – one speaking English and one Arabic, they would film scenes back to back.

  33. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:52 am  

    Thanks Mirax!

    I don’t normally read your comments, they are so dull, uninformed and helplessley chilshish .. but lucky I did this time!

    At least Siddarth can present a specious argument (thanks for that word btw!)

  34. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:52 am  

    damn no preview button…

  35. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:52 am  

    I find the gleeful provocative arrogance of mirax rather distasteful – whatever this whole affair signifies, for a significant number of people it signifies a chance to taunt Muslims.

    I say to Muslims you are reacting the wrong way and you have to bear with it – but I cannot help but find, in the context of what is going on, invocations like this a little vulgar:

    For those easily provoked into outrage and offence-taking, there are an embarrassing multitude of targets to take out. From South Park to the Supreme Court, Rodin to Rashid al Din : enjoy!

  36. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:54 am  

    mirax,
    Perhaps I should have said South East Asian. ;-)

    Also, for a person as intelligent and clued-up as you, to post that link containing images of Mohammed through the ages, is one that that “fuckwit” j0nz already did in a previous thread. The point is, I’m kind of surprised that you should advocate that link, since it suggests that you can’t tell the difference between traditional works of sacred art and iconography and ant-Muslim lampoonery. Unless you’re in support of the latter, I’m sure, you don’t. Do you?

  37. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:59 am  

    Vikrant, can you not see the irony in you talking about mosques being torn down in India by fundamentlist Hindus like you and then talking about how these Muslim fundy types are so weird? What does that make you?

    All the Hindutvadis are out in force – yuck – this is so nasty and sad and squalid.

  38. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 11:59 am  

    Jay
    you’re a sexy, noble, Singha beast.

  39. sonia — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:01 pm  

    ideally it would make sense if these people who’re clearly the butt of the jokes didn’t respond..and ‘rise’ to the bait

    However, i suppose one could say ‘ but the right to protest has to be upheld..’ Then maybe someone else will talk about ‘solidarity’ with their right to protest.

    really people are such simple things aren’t they. chuckle

  40. Bijna — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:02 pm  

    @ j0nz

    Some are very funny, some are vulgar.
    I like this one the most:

    http://retecool.com/ffvimg/img/503688d4/101_e8ab4ebf22c9e29e.jpg

  41. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:04 pm  

    Easy Sid, I’m taken ;-)

  42. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:24 pm  

    Daily Telegraph journalist-blogger speaks to one of the Danish Muslims who added the extra pictures to the portfolio that they took to Arab countries:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PXI5VF3LEPC2BQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=newsdesk&xml=/news/2006/02/03/bleurope03.xml

  43. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:25 pm  

    Hang on Jay(Jai?) before you go on clubbing me with the H-Gang. No I dont support those hysterical BNPisque thugs. With fundy types, I meant all fundy types which includes Khalistanis like you(?).

  44. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:28 pm  

    “Get together with Mirax and Vikrant as well, why don’t you, to throw in South Asian communal grievances as well.”

    How dare you count me in league with a Tamil Singaporean who-whines-about-racist-North-Indians.

  45. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:29 pm  

    Vikrant
    You’ve made the mistake too many times of claiming not to be Fundamentalist Hindutva and then posting links to your work on sites and supporting material which all point to one patently obvious fact: that Hindu Fundamentalism politics is where your heart really lies. Come out of the closet.

  46. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:29 pm  

    really which sites….

  47. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:30 pm  

    And could a Hindu-Muslim combo Baul explain to a savage atheist what are fundamentals of Hinduism?

  48. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:32 pm  

    Non-Attachment.

  49. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:32 pm  

    what?

  50. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:33 pm  

    Geez, such unpleasantness to deal with…esp as I am half busy cooking dinner;-)

    Here goes:I had no idea that Jonz had already posted the mohammed image archive link because i genuinely do skim over his posts. I posted it because :

    1 The current outrage over the representation of Mohammed is imo highly selective and hypocritical. There have been many instances, from the past and in recent years, in both muslim (yes not universal but not exactly that uncommon either Sid!) and western cultures of representation of Mohammed. The site afforded a very good selection of these images for anyone interested to judge for themselves. It is a not a perfect site- looks a mite hasty and may have got a couple of things wrong (like the Iranian jesussy portraits may actually be of Ali rather than Mo) but that is for the discerning visitor to judge for herself. Do I have to lead you guys by the hand and tell you that some of the images (specifically those Danish muslims allegedly included in their dossier) are truly nauseating? Not my call. The site itself seems to have taken an editoral decision to include ALL depictions it can lay its hands on and I find nothing wrong with that stand.

    2. I am atheist-I have no special consideration for any religious sensibility that is easily bruised and naturally inclined towards any endeavour that challenges the intrusions of religion into public life. That makes me an uncuddly sort of person and I do know that if I lisped some token but-i-REALLY-do-RESPECT-all-religions stuff, it will be easier on you guys. Tough.

    More on the charge of communal shit-stirring after dinner and a couple of glasses of wine.

  51. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:35 pm  

    Whoa two atheists accused of stirring communal hatred by Sid. Your communalist-detectometer is goin haywire dude.

  52. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:38 pm  

    The I-am-an-atheist-so-I-can-never-be-a-bigot excuse is getting a leeeeetle bit lame right about now.

  53. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:40 pm  

    Ok i give it to you, if expressing anti-Islamist opinions is bigotry then i am.

  54. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:42 pm  

    mirax,

    Looks to me like you’re flapping. Once again, the link you gleefully sent suggests that you can’t tell the difference between traditional works of sacred art and iconography and ant-Muslim piss-taking. If you were really wanting to elucidate us with the iconography of Muhammed in Shia art, there would have been better links to send.

  55. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:44 pm  

    Er….Vik my boy, fighting so ferociously from the hindutva corner of the room as you tend to do makes your claims of atheism rubbish. As rubbish as your statements on what I whine about.

  56. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:44 pm  

    Vikrant

    You are a communalist and a bigot, why deny it. Like all bigots and communalists you reach to the crudest and basest caricatures – faced with being confronted with your really pathetic armchair Hindutvadi fascism, you start spitting and squirming – look, why fight it?

    Don’t be ashamed of what you are – embrace it, don’t be a chickenshit. I wil respect you more. I cannot, however, respect a Hindutvadi bigot who is too ashamed or scared or chickenshit to acknowledge what he is – that just makes you a streak of piss.

  57. BevanKieran — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:47 pm  

    Howdy folks

    The winner of “First British based Islamist Group to call for the murder of the Cartoonists” goes to

    http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/articles/new/cartoon.htm
    http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/

    They be Al-Muhaj under a different moniker and are hosting a demonstration today outside Danish Embassy at 2p.m.

  58. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:47 pm  

    How is writing a full on piss take of the Prophet Mohammed in some bigot spin-off of wikipedia anti-Islamist as such?

    And if Jay Singh is a Khalistani for never once saying anything untoward about any religion make you for using every opportunity you get to insult Muslims?

  59. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:48 pm  

    Yeah yeah yeah Mirax – the self righteous shoot-from-the- hip-truth-teller, yeah., I know – we are sooooo in awe of your bravery. Heard it all before – please spare me it – get back to your dinner and wine.

  60. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:49 pm  

    last post directed to Virant the Hindutva Vampire.

  61. The holy kerrang — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:49 pm  

    does anyone have link to cartoon on web? I have not found it on google. I want to see it before I get angry or shrugging shoulders

  62. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:50 pm  

    mirax,
    you got no right to question my beliefs. I’m an atheist when i say i am.
    @Jay i really dont get this, you were being really nice other. You can be Secular and you can be Rightist. A perfectly sane person can see Islamic Fundamentalism for what it is and same time abhor Hindutva.

  63. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:51 pm  

    Sid – he is a really nasty boy-child – limited understanding and vision. Forget him – he deserves to be trussed up in leather and put on a leash and sent to America to be put in a dungeon and kept as Bikhair’s gimp ;-)

  64. The holy kerrang — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:52 pm  

    link please

  65. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:53 pm  

    Sid… Uncyclopedia is A HUMOUR website. Muslims really cant take piss-taking at their religion.
    See

    http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Hinduism which is also partially authored by me. See History button if you dont believe me.

  66. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:55 pm  

    Vikrant

    You can be a Hindutvadi without believing in God. You just come across as an obsessed foaming at the mouth Muslim basher.

  67. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:55 pm  

    Well, yeah, its redneck/BNP/Hindutva humour.

  68. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:57 pm  

    Jay do me a favour. Define a Hindutvadi.

  69. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:58 pm  

    Vikrant – you are obsessed with Muslims in a really unhealthy ultra right Hindu nationalist way

  70. Col. Mustafa — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:06 pm  

    Bottom line is; if these cartoons offend, any progressive thinking in the islamic world will offend them more.

    The Danish cartoons aren’t even worthy of news; but they are.
    Thats how lame this whole issue is.

  71. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:07 pm  

    Col Mustafa

    I agree – it is all so lame and very very sad.

  72. Anil — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:13 pm  

    I put this on the other post as well…but what the heck..if any issue deserves commenting twice – this is it.
    ———————
    Hi guys…I am jumping a little late in the argument but heres my 2 cents…

    I see that one aspect of this whole shemaroo is not mentioned. That Islam forbids idolatory is understood. But are all those guys out there really worked up due to the morality or legality of the thing? I think not.
    I am quite sure the reason of the ire is the effect of this idolatory. For e.g. if the Koran said, if you make an idol of me…you will be spanked on your bottom 5 times and given a soother later on – I guess the Muslims will not mind as much. But the descriptions of a steamy hell for all these fundos is whats getting them all worked up. Again it all boils down to the fear of something that propels these guys into action. And that is what gets my goat. Most arguments you will find on websites end with this…’THink about the Akhira (afterlife)’ – this is their day of judgement where they will be put in boiling vats of oil or some such.
    It is this irrational fear of what will happen when they are dead (no one miss the irony here) that scares the beejesus out of these guys.
    Well thats me…

  73. Bijna — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:14 pm  

    > does anyone have link to cartoon on web?

    Here are the original 12 cartoons. Just scroll down.

    http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=74

  74. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:19 pm  

    Bijna

    That link doesn’t work!

  75. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:20 pm  

    #40 that is…

  76. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:31 pm  

    OK! Can you guys stop bickering with these silly labels? It getting a tad bit annoying and off-topic! The first half of the discussion was actually sensible and addressed my points, and after that its just deteriorated. So please, stop (or I will delete), and get back to the original points.

    I’m now going to reply to the points addressed.

  77. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:51 pm  

    Vikrant – Some guy who wrote a book on Prophet wasnt able to find an illustrator as some hot-heads had issued a fatwa against him.

    There were no fatwas issued AFAIK. An author could not find any illustrator to draw pictures, and JP thought it would raise a good storm if it called for submissions and printed some cartoons. The fact that the cartoons are so shit also illustrates that there was no issue of quality involved, just to raise a storm IMO.

    Newsguy:
    2. Do a Google Image Search for “Mohammed” you’ll see plenty-o-picks of our pal Mo’. Why there isn’t a raging jihad against the GoogleGuys remains a mystery.
    I haven’t denied that, and Sepoy, linked above, also points that out. But as others have since pointed, drawing a crtoon with a bomb on the turban will be seen as offensive, regardless of the religion. Try doing it with Jesus, Guru Nanak, or Lord Ram, the reaction will be huge. Whether violent, I’m not sure.

    8. The Muslim world is rife with anti-semetic, anti-American and anti-western propoganda. An argument can be made that everyone is guilty of a double standard on this issue.
    I agree. Saudis and Libyans dictating to us on what standards to have on FoS and religion is laughable. But I’ve ignored because I don’t really care about them. I care about our own actions. The Saudis will always be full of hypocrisy.

    Mirax:but your point number three quotation about the Jyllands-posten is a touch dishonest- that was in the 1920’s! It may still be a conservative, centre-right newspaper just like say, the Daily Mail, but the editorial line is hardly fascist and has not been for a LONG time.

    I’m providing background, and I don’t see anythign dishonest in this. People to talk about Muslim reactions will always reach into history to make their point. People always use history to provide guidelines, and I think its only right to say that this is a right-wing paper that also felt like it needed to offend people. That is my view.

    But youmake a good point here:
    you make yourself to be since you require a utilitarian reason for free expression-
    I never said I need a good reason to stand up for FoS. and I’ve said in this case I once again side with FoS. What I’m saying is that for me to truly respect the reason for why this blew up, there has to be a good point to make. Many of us on the left are ambivalent (Bloggersheads, Chicken Yoghurt, BSSC) because of precisely this reason.

    On an absolute FoS stance, as David (MWW) has quite rightly taken, there is a point to be made, and I respect that. But this controversy on its own was there only to offend IMO, not make any other point.

    Bijna:
    If Muslims get upset (as in world wide mass hysteria) by these silly cartoons, EVERYTHING will upset them.
    I can cite plenty of examples with Hindus and Sikhs getting upset over smaller issues. Yes, religious people get offended easily, that is a fact.

    Bertie:
    I’d argue quite strongly (and have in other places) that the urge to ‘blaspheme’ is an essential part of ‘western’
    Yes, although only in the last 30 years or so it has become as such. Even during the JS:TO controversy, plenty of papers were running hysterial rantings about the 40,000 or so supposed swear words in the play.

    And the reaction of some from the Islamic world patently plays into hands of extremists over here
    Totally agreed, and its why it makes my head shake in disappointment. This is like watching a train-crash in slow motion. So predictable yet unstoppable.

  78. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:09 pm  

    Jay i’d have really liked to answer with a 500 word essay. For records, i dont believe India should be a Hindu nation. Nor do i support things like Gujarat carnage. But at the same time i recognise, historic misdeeds and rising Islamic extremism (which is more pronounced than Hindutva) add fuel to the fire and will ultimately threaten world peace.

  79. gk — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:17 pm  

    j@wonz – the messiah will not save you ( i hope u wern’t offended – but it’s true though – It will all a big trick to fool you lot – it worked ha ah )

  80. bananabrain — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:23 pm  

    i certainly think it’s time that muslims began to recognise the cultural rights of europeans to be rude about religion and to develop a sense of humour about it. shame on the guys that sacked that editor in jordan for pleading for a sense of proportion.

    for the record, no humour is as effective as the self-inflicted. GGM is a good example of this. personally, i got a huge kick out of that episode of south park where they went to “jew scout camp”. in the words of jonathan ross, i laughed until a little bit of wee came out. the script is here:

    http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/southpark/season3/southpark-309.htm

    if anyone’s interested, but i advise you to see the cartoon – particularly if you remember the “mcp” from tron.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

    btw: wow, it’s amazing how easily the mutual indo/pak/sikh/bangla eye-poking and beard-pulling can get going here. don’t you guys get bored with it? or am i (heh heh) in my own glass house?

  81. Bijna — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:25 pm  

    > a crtoon with a bomb on the turban will be seen
    > as offensive, regardless of the religion.
    > Try doing it with Jesus

    Drawing a bomb on the head of Jesus would
    just be laughable. Jesus was a pascifist.

  82. Col. Mustafa — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:31 pm  

    Moses and jesus have machine guns on them while they kill the Egyptians in a Simpsons episode,

    LOOOOL.

  83. Vikrant — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:37 pm  

    I remember one South Park episode did show Mohammed,Krishna,Jesus and Buddha…..

    it’s amazing how easily the mutual indo/pak/sikh/bangla eye-poking and beard-pulling can get going here

    Lets call in some Palestinians for a change.

  84. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:47 pm  

    ha ha.

  85. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:47 pm  

    Good old El Pais. We’re talking Spain’s equivalent of The Guardian here.
    Well done me bredren! Dale dale dale!

  86. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:53 pm  

    El Cid

    Do you think Has El Pais will ever published Piss Christ or ‘Jesus Just Wants To Fuck His Dad’ on its front page to show its solidarity for FoS any time soon do you think?

  87. Jai — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:54 pm  

    Vikrant,

    Re: your message no. 43

    No, Jay Singh and I are not the same person (the most obvious sign being the fact that I no longer use the name “Singh” as part of my online username, for the reasons explained on Sepia Mutiny).

    I wouldn’t have used quite the abusive language towards you as he has elsewhere in this thread, but I do agree with him that you have a little too much hostility towards Islam and Muslims. By all means, object to certain present-day and historical events if you genuinely feel you’re justified, but don’t descent into “eye-for-an-eye” name-calling and ridiculing, and make sure that your own behaviour is above reproach.

    You have to maintain the moral high ground in these situations.

  88. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:54 pm  

    Drawing a bomb on the head of Jesus would
    just be laughable. Jesus was a pascifist.

    Except many a Christian has in the past killed in the name of Jesus :)

    Guru Gobind Singh ji wasn’t averse to kicking some ass either, but you try making him into a terrorist and you’ll have a few hundred khalistanis knocking on your door.

    My point isn’t to say all this behaviour is acceptable – it is not. I hate it when religious people threaten retaliation with violence. But it happens.

  89. Col. Mustafa — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:55 pm  

    There is alot of protest about this; but if you speak to the average Iranian/Saudi youth, they don’t care.

    They just want to live thier lives and be able to do what they want without being told at every step that this is bad, or this is good.

    You can’t deny the influence of the West; and many of the younger generation watch tv mainly from the west.
    They follow the humour, and they like it.
    So change will come whether they like it or not.

  90. Bijna — on 3rd February, 2006 at 2:59 pm  

    > Except many a Christian has in the past killed
    > in the name of Jesus.

    No, I think they used the word God.

    Sunny, are you aware that Jesus and Mohammed
    had very different lives? For example, Jesus had
    no sword and Mohammed had seven.

  91. Jai — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:04 pm  

    =>”And the reaction of some from the Islamic world patently plays into hands of extremists over here
    Totally agreed, and its why it makes my head shake in disappointment. This is like watching a train-crash in slow motion. So predictable yet unstoppable.”

    For once I have to completely agree with Sunny here. This whole debacle gives ammunition to jihadists and “caliphatists” everywhere, and threatens to succeed uniting normally-moderate Muslims with their more extremist cousins (something OBL, Iraq, HuT etc had not succeeded in doing).

    Regardless of the intentions behind the original (and continuing) publication of the cartoons (whether it is for FoS or driven by more malicious agendas), this is a suicidally stupid course of action to take.

    “Moorakh, moorakh, moorakh”, to use the Indian word. It literally means “stupid” or “foolish”, but I don’t think the English translation does justice to exactly how idiotic these actions have been.

    And now there are apparently people like Anjem Choudhary (ex-Al Mujahiroun) appearing on the news channels in order to explain exactly why the cartoons were so offensive, and to simultaneously state the threat of dire consequences (including in London), as “insults to the Prophet Mohammad, according to Shariah, are punishable by death”.

    Anjem Choudhary. Of all people. The mind boggles.

    Even various wings of HuT have been taking control of the situation in order to lead protests. As I said, this whole issue plays right into the hands of the fanatics.

  92. bananabrain — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:09 pm  

    vikrant – have no fear! for, as we all know, it is written:

    “Wherever Israel and Palestine are discussed, yea, verily there shall be much butting of heads, and airing of grievances. And behold, there shall be a mighty wind from the nether regions of all concerned. And if all are only concerned to advocate and justify their own position and victimhood, whilst refusing to attempt to understand that of others then, in that day, absolutely bugger-all shall be achieved. Thus it has been and so shall it ever be.”

    fortunately, even our keyboard maccabees and mousejaheedin may be prevailed upon to take a breather once in a while and then, perhaps, cooler heads may prevail.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  93. Jai — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:16 pm  

    =>”Guru Gobind Singh ji wasn’t averse to kicking some ass either, but you try making him into a terrorist and you’ll have a few hundred khalistanis knocking on your door.”

    Since the Guru’s name has been mentioned and the person making the comment is not a Sikh, let me briefly state for the record (and for the benefit of people who are unaware of the details of Sikh history) that Guru Gobind Singh did not wage war to spread his religion, or to capture territory, or as “revenge” or “punishment”, and he certainly didn’t believe in capturing slaves and/or women or attacking unarmed civilian non-combatants.

    The Guru’s ethos for warfare stated clearly that it was only to be conducted as a last resort when all other peaceful means had failed, and only then in highly extenuating circumstances and for a ‘just’ cause — which in the Sikh sense means for self-defence or to protect innocent/vulnerable third-parties who are being attacked by another aggressive group.

    However, it is correct that any malicious depiction of him probably would trigger a hostile response in some quarters.

  94. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:19 pm  

    Jai – was that inbred donkey Anjem Choudhary on a BBC programme? I agree with you, it just gives such extremists a great controversy to bleat on about. And lazy journalists annoy me so much sometimes.

    Bijna:
    No, I think they used the word God.
    I think you’ll find that wasn’t the case with Jesuits and the crusades. Or when Catholics were killing Protestants and vice versa. Try reading history sometimes.

  95. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:20 pm  

    Jai
    I reckon you can be quiet heroically mentalist for the Sikh cause in a quiet, studied, polite way. More power to ya.

  96. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:24 pm  

    Well over there there’s friends of mine
    What can I say, I’ve known ‘em for a long long time
    And yeah they might overstep the line
    But I just cannot get angry in the same way
    Not in the same way
    Not in the same way
    Oh no, oh no no

    –Arctic Monkies

  97. bananabrain — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:26 pm  

    remind me again what the punjabi for “inbred donkey” is?

    i think i met anjem choudhary once. never paused for breath and a spitter to boot.

    i mean, as much as the bbc can be lazy, whenever they’re trying to find a muslim to comment it seems to be a toss-up between a donkey and a weasel. speaking of which, did anyone hear bunglawala on the today programme this morning?

    sheesh. and just after chiefy had given such a spot-on “thought for the day”.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  98. Bijna — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:34 pm  

    @ Sunny

    The battle cry during the Crusades was “Deus Volt”,
    or “its God’s will”. In other words NOT “its Jesus will”. Maybe you should read the Bible sometime.

    I know a lot about history. Like I now that the Crusades were held AFTER the Muslims had attacked Byzantium, and had wiped out the Christian population of Egypt.

  99. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:35 pm  

    Sid, come back to me when you learn to argue like a grown man, fool bwai. Rant rant rant. It’s as if you can’t live without the negative energy of a slanging match. The cartoon reprinted in El Pais is one of Mohammed made up of lines which say “I must draw Mohammad” in French. Not what you said.
    Next time you chat shit I shall not deign to respond.
    As for this: 2) It is a given fact that Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs are highly sensitive of portrayals of their gods and prophets And? What, Christians aren’t? Who gives a fuck (actually, I didnt realise Hindus were that bothered).
    Look, lets get this straight. The fact religious-minded Christians take it on the chin in Britain is because they have no choice. In the Britain you know the religious right have been beaten into submission over time. I mean, there’s currently an art exhibition questioning Jesus’ sexuality for Chrissake. No-one is suggesting we have “Comic Strip Presents: Mohammed – Does he take it up the Garry?”
    Even so, it’s also a given that the Christian right kick up a right stink time and time again in Spain and in the USA. Take this little example. Don’t be so frigging ignorant or selective. Are we suggesting that we pucker up to them too?
    El Pais as it happens has busted many religious flushes. Like backing single-sex marriages, now legal in Spain.
    If we’re gonna close tribal ranks whenever we think our parents or Uncle Ahmed might be offended, then fine, but lets not pretend out of intellectial pride that our arguments are seamless or that we are truly worldly wise.
    The issue here is not the cartoons but the ridiculous reaction. If we hadn’t had that, no one would have given a toss.

  100. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:35 pm  

    By the way, I know it’s fashionable to say otherwise, but I didn’t think Satanic Verse was that bad. Not as good as Midnight Children, true, but far better than East, West which was truly awful.

  101. Steve M — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:39 pm  

    “Jesus saves, Moses invests”

    (sorry, it just came to me)

  102. Jai — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:42 pm  

    Sunny,

    Anjem Choudhary was on the mid-day ITV news today, attempting to psychologically bully Nina Hussein.

    With all due respect, I think it would be wise to refrain from referring to Sikhs in your example above as “Khalistanis” — it is as bad as automatically calling devout (or liberal) Muslims who may object to some actual/perceived insult or misrepresentation of their religion or its founder(s) as “terrorists” or “jihadists/fanatics”. Let’s not have any double-standards here, especially if the person making the statement is not a Sikh himself.

    However, as I said before, your example was apt, even if some of the terminology was perhaps inappropriate.

    Siddharth,

    Thank you for your kind words, bro ;) I don’t think “mentalist” is the right word — I’m a pretty liberal guy in terms of my day-to-day practice of the faith (as Rohin could confirm, having spoken to me countless times on Sepia Mutiny). However, I do think that it’s important to answer any deliberate or accidental misrepresentation of the religion, its tenets, or its founders.

    Also, the core principles and ideals are noble enough from a humanitarian perspective and worth aspiring to, even if one isn’t necessarily a Sikh in the “strict” sense oneself (I know you understand, based on our previous chats here). Which, of course, is basically the whole point of what the Gurus were both practicing and preaching.

    Anyway, thanks again for the compliment, very considerate of you.

  103. Jawwad S — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:46 pm  

    I am a South Asian Muslim living in Ireland, details why the cartoons are offensive: Not only was the prophet depicted, he was portrayed as a terrorist. “Hopefully out of ignorance rather than malevolence, something deeply painful to the entire Muslim world was published in a Danish newspaper. That in itself was an irresponsible use of the freedom of the press, which in no country anywhere is an unlimited freedom allowing journalists to vilify, libel or lie.

  104. bananabrain — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:48 pm  

    i liked “midnight’s children” very much, but didn’t think much of “the moor’s last sigh”. rather grubby in a philip roth kind of way. besides, the latin american magical realists like isabel allende and brazil’s superb jorge amado (to say nothing of portugal’s josé saramago, for all that he’s a classic leftie israelbasher) beat rushdie hands down. haven’t read the s.v. but rather feel obliged to. which is why i haven’t yet.

    and while i’m at it, i thought that “the god of small things” by arundhati roy was just cack. my taste runs more to vikram seth, although more “a suitable boy” than “an equal music”, which just reminded me just how up themselves classical musicians can get. at least a.s.b. will last you an entire holiday – and if you’ve got the one-volume edition you can use it to knock potential muggers unconscious.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  105. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:49 pm  

    El Cid
    I maintain that the descisions taken by European papers to reprint the cartoons is more to do with journalistic solidarity than any rarseklart bullcrap about Freedom of Speech or any other such ting an ting.

    And given that the decision to publish the cartoons was provocatory in the first place, I just don’t know what the decision to reprint by El Pais and the Euro papers. Seen?

    By the way, me na tink Satanic was dat bad eider. And me loved Shame, ya na me seh?

  106. Col. Mustafa — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:56 pm  

    I swear your getting more ghetto by the day Sid.

    hehehe, its funny though.

  107. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:00 pm  

    “and while i’m at it, i thought that “the god of small things” by arundhati roy was just cack. my taste runs more to vikram seth”

    me too, bananabrain.

  108. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:03 pm  

    Hey Sid,

    what was this claptrap you spouted about me being a SE Asian communalist just now? Based on what precisely?

  109. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:04 pm  

    Jai – I used khalistanis because they’re usually the first to take offence at anything, as opposed to “moderate” sikhs, if the term can be used. But yeah, it was generally a throwaway line.

    Nina Hossain is lovely, though ITV News needs a beating for having that twat on there.

  110. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:05 pm  

    Yeah, more ghetto circa 1989

  111. j0nz — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:06 pm  

    When Jesus said Love thy enemy, would he have said the same thing knowing about these guys?

  112. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:06 pm  

    mirax:

    you looking at me?

  113. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:08 pm  

    El Chaud

    Go on, give us a bit of Now Thats What I Call Ghetto 2006.

  114. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:08 pm  

    “Let’s not have any double-standards here, especially if the person making the statement is not a Sikh himself.”

    That’s twice now that you said this,Jai. Just cuase Sunny won’t come out as a Sikh, his comments on the religion are suspect? Only Sikhs can comment on Sikhism?

  115. Sunny — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:17 pm  

    El Cid:
    What, Christians aren’t? Who gives a fuck (actually, I didnt realise Hindus were that bothered).
    Look, lets get this straight. The fact religious-minded Christians take it on the chin in Britain is because they have no choice. In the Britain you know the religious right have been beaten into submission over time.

    I would say Christians in western Europe, if not the mediterranean have become more used to blasphemy, so don’t bat an eyelid as much.

    You’re right, they have no choice, and you’re also right that religions need to be beaten into submission over time. I’m just saying in that case the issue has to be obvious, rather than just trying for gratuitous insults.

  116. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:17 pm  

    Looked up these jesusandmo comics just for you Sid ;-)

    The last 3 on the danish cartoon furore are pretty funny. Enjoy now.

    http://www.jesusandmo.net/

  117. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:20 pm  

    And Jesus the musical for dear El:

    http://www.iranian.com/Anyway/2006/January/jesus.html

  118. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:21 pm  

    Yeah, they’re genuinely witty stuff.

    Oh, sorry, I’m supposed to feign consternation:

    ggrrr, growl, howl!!!!!!

  119. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:26 pm  

    Siddown, I’m from a similar era I’m afraid.
    How about “ra’tid”, “murder”, and “bumba cleeet” for old time’s sake.
    But then we’re only borrowing Jamaican slang now aren’t we?
    What the kids chat now is much more of a hybrid and home-grown. My kids and their mates sometimes say “sick” and “nang”. But suggest you listen to Kano, Eskimo, Roll-Deep Crew if you really wanna know.
    The Catherine Tate Show also have the accent down to a T.
    j0nz: the answer to your question is very simple — yes he would.

  120. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:30 pm  

    Mirax

    I don’t thnk you’re vignette will be complete until you post some image of Krishna fisting Ganesh up his elephantine glory hole. And remember to show it to your mum, you progressive shocker you. ;-)

  121. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:35 pm  

    eezy na soops

  122. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:37 pm  

    [sucks teeth in a prolonged manner]

  123. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 4:41 pm  

    I am frantically googling for the offensive stuff on Hindus even as we speak Sid but not much luck.

    Btw, my mother still has not gotten over the shock of my defiling the family prayer deities with soiled feminine sanitary napkins when I was 13. Nor the time I actually kicked a priest. Little I do shocks her.

    My hindu relatives had it really tough then, I sort of go a bit easy on them now to make up for the stress I caused them and because I am just so mellow and in tune now, y’ know….

  124. Siddharth — on 3rd February, 2006 at 5:09 pm  

    mirax

    I was pulling your leg. I have no intention of wanting to see some offensive image of Hindu deities, thanks all the same. And certainly not Ganesh, that sweety.

  125. Cinnamon — on 3rd February, 2006 at 5:37 pm  

    Hey now Siddhart,

    Not so fundamental with your opinons here, oy ve!

    If I was religious, Ganesh would be my choice of deity, so, if you want don’t to offend my prrrecious atheist feelings, you better be vewy careful, or I will politically correct you until you are ready to add an ‘a’ to the end of your nickname (and spell the rest correctly).

    Anyway, what we need right now is the Remover of Obstacles!

    (and bah to petrol and horsepower. Mouse power rulez!)

  126. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 5:49 pm  

    Thierry Henry is my God, assuming he stays

  127. mirax — on 3rd February, 2006 at 6:03 pm  

    I’m rather fond of ganesh and buddha myself (the original Siddharta) and collect little statues of them – they’re so iconic of asia.

  128. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 6:20 pm  

    I wish I had seen the wonderful Nina Hossein stand up to that thick ugly imbecile Anjum Chaudhry! Wanker. She must have terrified him.

    at least a.s.b. will last you an entire holiday

    A holiday? You need a sabbatical to finish that novel bananabrain!

    b’shalom

  129. Jai — on 3rd February, 2006 at 6:21 pm  

    Mirax,

    =>”That’s twice now that you said this,Jai. Just cuase Sunny won’t come out as a Sikh, his comments on the religion are suspect? Only Sikhs can comment on Sikhism?”

    Not at all. My point is that one should be equally objective when assessing disparate religions and the (mis)behaviour of the respective faith’s adherents. If you have near-analogous situations, it’s not correct to apply different standards and therefore display a bias for or against one group over another. Furthermore, if one has explicitly stated that one is not affiliated to Religion A, then it’s not acceptable to repeatedly make throwaway negative comments about various aspects of the faith’s adherents if, simultaneously, one would certainly not behave in a similar manner towards Religion B or its followers.

    Anyway, Sunny has graciously acknowledged the point I was trying to make, so let’s not get too side-tracked into an off-topic debate.

    With regards to the whole issue of the cartoons, I re-iterate my statement that this is incredibly misguided and very dangerous, especially in the current global climate — it’s basically throwing an oil-tanker worth of petrol onto an already flaming inferno.

    OBL and his cohorts must be laughing their heads off.

  130. yolanda — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:18 pm  

    You discusting people are in MY country.You idiots bite the hand that feeds you. You will soon be deported for your treasonable words.Yes we do know where you live.

  131. Harry Noble — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:22 pm  

    If you don;t like free speech, GO HOME to Pakistan or whatever pox ridden Moslem country you come from!!!!!!!!

  132. Jay Singh — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:41 pm  

    Wow – it looks like some lurkers from Harry’s Place found their way here (I kid, I kid!) ;-)

  133. El Cid — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:41 pm  

    Yolanda, that’s such a lovely name. Do you take it up the arse?

  134. BevanKieran — on 3rd February, 2006 at 8:44 pm  

    Yoland, Harry, Oliver

    B.N.P share of the vote in the last election = 0.74%

    Na na na na neh neh.(Wheres a smiling Cartman face when you need one)

    Brits hate Hitler worshippers so piss off.

  135. Rohin — on 4th February, 2006 at 1:20 am  

    Sorry, I’ve been asleep for the last 12 hours (don’t ask) so I’m a bit late to the party. I’m glad we’ve moved away slightly from the bickering earlier on, so I am loath to dredge things up again, but I couldn’t let one thing go.

    Vikrant, I don’t think you’re a bad guy and I’m not going to tell you what you should or shouldn’t think about Muslims or anyone else. But I found your behaviour a bit irksome.

    “How dare you count me in league with a Tamil Singaporean”

    “Hindu-Muslim combo Baul”

    It’s entirely irrelevant where anyone comes from and frankly I found it all a bit close to racism. Secondly, accusing Jay Singh of being a Khalistani is idiotic. Look mate, I like reading a lot of what you say (I’ll watch the blog with interest…but I think I know what’s coming) but you tend to say stupid things without thinking.

    El Cid: “Thierry Henry is my God, assuming he stays”

    Ah, the church of the fallen God. Try working all night with a West Ham fan!

  136. mirax — on 4th February, 2006 at 4:26 am  

    “Furthermore, if one has explicitly stated that one is not affiliated to Religion A, then it’s not acceptable to repeatedly make throwaway negative comments about various aspects of the faith’s adherents if, simultaneously, one would certainly not behave in a similar manner towards Religion B or its followers. ”

    I get the impression that there is some sort of private dispute here. But as you say, Sunny himself let it go, so I will shut up. You do know that when Sikhs next go on the rampage, I;ll stick my spurs in you guys too, right? :-)

  137. mirax — on 4th February, 2006 at 6:07 am  

    It’s entirely irrelevant where anyone comes from and frankly I found it all a bit close to racism.

    Really? I can’t for the life of me see what’s even vaguely racist in the term ‘tamil singaporean’! thanks for worrying but I am FAR, FAR more insulted by Sid calling me a communalist grievance monger. I may forgive but will not forget.

  138. Rohin — on 4th February, 2006 at 6:14 am  

    “Tamil Singaporean ” isn’t racist, but “how dare you count me in with a Tamil Singaporean” is closer. Why is it necessary to mention the fact you’re Tamil at that point? Anyway, if you’re not bothered, let’s forget it.

    I don’t really understand what communalist means. People chuck it, apologist and fascist around so much they’ve lost all meaning.

  139. Paul Figgis — on 4th February, 2006 at 8:59 am  

    I wae never racist, but i bloody well am now! I am racist and proud to be, if it means kicking out bastards like you who are threatening to kill people because of a few cartoons!

  140. El Cid — on 4th February, 2006 at 9:33 am  

    Rohin: Church of the fallen God. Tell me about it!! I’ve had it in the neck for days. West Ham, Spuds, Colchester United — they’ve all been laying into me. Multimedia pisstaking on a grand scale.
    I’m still hoping to go to Madrid but it’s a bit scary. My faith though is unshaken.

  141. Vikrant — on 4th February, 2006 at 12:21 pm  

    Clarification. I could have simplified it as Indian Singaporean. Let me assure you there was no racist intent.
    Miraz is well.. so damn cocky. Well mirax comes up on other thread and says that for Tamils to get out of India is a big relief as if implying that North Indians are racist people. That was what i was playing at.

  142. mirax — on 4th February, 2006 at 12:43 pm  

    “for Tamils to get out of India is a big relief as if implying that North Indians are racist people.”

    LOL! I NEVER wrote nor implied such a thing, you silly whinger. If anything I said that it was a relief to get away from other Tamils . It sure takes nothing, nothing at all for you to take ‘offence’ does it? Luckily you still have some time to grow up.

  143. Vikrant — on 4th February, 2006 at 12:47 pm  

    Well you did say that you silly (edited).

  144. Vikrant — on 4th February, 2006 at 1:24 pm  

    And anyways even if you didnt mean it. It looked that way. Have grace to accept it.

  145. Jai — on 4th February, 2006 at 2:37 pm  

    Mirax,

    =>”You do know that when Sikhs next go on the rampage, I;ll stick my spurs in you guys too, right? ”

    If, unlike myself, you believe in the concept of “collective guilt” or “group responsibility”, go ahead. Personally, I don’t believe in “sticking my spurs” into anyone unless they are either directly responsible for some malicious action or have explicitly stated that they support others involved in such behaviour.

    Sunny and I have both repeatedly stated that we do not condone people “going on the rampage”, regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliation.

  146. Jay Singh — on 4th February, 2006 at 2:45 pm  

    Jai

    Mirax is a Singapore chablis drinking soft communalist ‘straight talking’ self righteous preener – hey, I am an equal opportunity disser, look how fearless I am blah blah blah – so *yawn*

  147. mirax — on 4th February, 2006 at 9:19 pm  

    If, unlike myself, you believe in the concept of “collective guilt” or “group responsibility”, go ahead.

    It was a joke, lighten up will you? But no, I do not buy into collective responsibility. Just as I do not buy into group identity, collective merit and so on. Say, the sort that frequently prefaces an individual opinion, you know the line that goes, “As Sikhs/Muslims/Hindus, we/I say and do this…”

    Jay, gratuitous personal insults and venting your spleen on me says a fair bit about YOUR character, not mine. Calling me a communalist a million times does not make me one, so do fuck off.

  148. El Cid — on 4th February, 2006 at 9:54 pm  

    ????
    I suggest you all smoke a spliff and chill out

  149. mynewsbot — on 5th February, 2006 at 1:54 am  

    Those fanatics are always pissed off on something or other .. do we care ? Maybe some people should grow up and get themselves out of 1600′s

  150. Sunny — on 5th February, 2006 at 2:09 am  

    Hey guys, stop bickering. Mirax is def not a communalist, and I don’t see how reading her posts lead anyone to that conclusion. We’re all on the same side, so lets have a grown up discussion please instead of the mud-slinging that I see on other blogs.

  151. Jay Singh — on 5th February, 2006 at 2:22 pm  

    Yeah mirax – drink a few more glasses of wine and chill out.

  152. Siddharth — on 6th February, 2006 at 12:47 am  

    MiraX rocks.

  153. Cinnamon — on 8th February, 2006 at 11:47 am  

    Seems the origin of the ‘Mohammed as pig’ “cartoon” has been solved, at least there is a picture of a frenchman that looks remarkably like the photocopy that was part of the set.

    http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=23829&highlight=#23829

  154. sonia — on 8th February, 2006 at 11:58 am  

    i think that poor student editor bloke should be un-suspended.

  155. Col. Mustafa — on 8th February, 2006 at 12:07 pm  

    Ohh man, why did they do that for?

    Thats just really silly and immature on the part of these imams; or thier son that get hold of the pic and said lets shade it out and put this in as well.

    I mean atleast draw a separate pig caricature.

    I would of drawn it for them if they just asked; it wouldn’t take too long.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.