Because religion has lost its chime in the west does not mean that we all follow. There are 2 scenarios, but both are equal in their own way. However, it appears that when jews or the holocaust are offended that action is taken through safeguards which are already in place, or put in place as we see with Red Ken. To be of the opinion that denying/refering to the holocaust may cause a resurge of history is like saying to mention civil rights or saddam houssein will cause a resurge of their respective conflicts. I dont buy it, though I accept what offends the sentiments of Jews and am all for their protection. It is just that I want some protection too for when I am offended in a similar way. Islamophobia and racism is also a problem in europe and the cartoons perpetuated this. First it was tackled correctly by lead muslims from 9/2005 onwards until the end of jan/06 when the wrong people got involved and it negatively escalated. This is where my main gripe occurs as the papers were then able to republish the pictures regardless of countless muslims making it clear that they were offended.

Nevertheless, I agree that the muslims were stupid in the way they reacted which was no different to the blacks in birmingham recently and the immigrants in france, rather then condemning the jews they could actually take a leaf out of the jews book in learning how to effectively take action.

In addition to what they have already said, the point is this: The veracity of Mohammad being a sacred figure and a divinely-inspired prophet is a matter of opinion (although not to devout Muslims, obviously).

However, the veracity of the Holocaust is a matter of inalieable historical FACT. There is solid, concrete evidence to support this.

This is the basic difference between the 2 scenarios.

While I can understand why devout Muslims would feel that disagreeing with the former is a destructive course of action, attempting to promote a revisionist version of the latter is actually incredibly dangerous because of the reasons already stated by Don and others here on PP.

Also, retaliating by mocking the Holocaust or indeed attempting to deny its existence (and why the continuous obsession with Jews ?) not only deserves contempt, it is an extremely spiteful, vicious, and frankly childish way to react, and not only further makes the perpetrators look worse in the eyes of the rest of the world, it continues to undermine any religious credibility and moral authority they may claim to have.

Those on both sides who seek a reaction have settled on juvenile and crude ways to do it. How many racists are delighted by the idea that with a few strokes of the pen they can send muslims into their own streets to burn and destroy their own cities? How many dead because of the cartoons? How many of them were in the remotest way connected with the publication? I’d guess none. to ‘retaliate’ by mocking the gas chambers also gets a reaction; contempt.

I know its hard to accept for many Muslims, but the two are not comparable offences. Muslims should re-evaluate what it means to deal with provocationary acts directed at their beliefs from a legal point of view rather than from a purely sentimental and reactionary one.

Publishing the cartoons was a breach of religious taboo, and was racist in intent – that we know. Or at least on PP we know. However, organised religion has lost its value in the West because it doesn’t chime with Liberal Democracy. And all things remaining equal, thats the system we live in and should respect.

This publishing of the cartoons was anathema to Muslims. However, in order to safeguard themselves from such attacks, there exist laws which govern the protection of those who will use “Freedom of Speech” to incite hatred. Therefore Muslims would be wise to use the apparatus of the legal and judicial systems to fight such attacks on grounds of incitement of hatred or on by any such law that protects rights rather than by destroying property, rioting and ultimately losing the meaning of the offence caused in the first place.

The Holocaust is an event which is loaded with connotations of guilt and culpability for Europeans. It occurred in the living memory of people who we are contemporaries of. It was also a culmination of an endemic European pattern of antisemtism that goes back many hundreds of years to when Jews first came to Europe. See here.

Comparison of another crime, however heinous, to the Holocaust is to deny it. Abd to deny the Holocaust is to attempt to revise Europe’s dirty history of racism and prejudice and attempt to legitimise, even justify, its crimes on others. This is another anathema. Comparing one anathema to another gets you nowhere and to encourage it is to buy the Muslim bashers pretext to assuage the collective guilt of the the Holocaust and transfer it to Muslims. Muslims seem all too ready to bear this guilt – god only knows why (hello Mr Ahmadinejad). But that is what Muslims cannot afford to do if they want to have their rights respected in return.

So please, there’s a trap here which says “Muslims Don’t Press this Button”. Don’t fall for the obvious by pressing it.

I accept your point about Mullahs disinterest in football compared to the general population of Iran and that in those circumstances a boycott would be vindictive.
I am in two minds as to whether political issues should be kept out of sport. Going OT here but South Africa and the sports boycott was a clear way of exposing the injustices of apartheid (covered brilliantly in Peter Oborne’s Basil D’Oliveira biography). It could also be argued that Irans qualification from the Asian league was facilitated by the expulsion of Israel. (This topic is covered poorly by a particularly illiterate Wikipedia entry). However I do wish Iran well, though not as well as if there was a decent side (i.e capable of beating England) in their group.

Yes, the fire thing’s a silly comparison, which is why I don’t agree with the denial laws and which is why I wouldn’t support a law that forbade taking the mickey out of someone’s god. I support the repeal of the blasphemy laws, not their extension.

The implication only Muslims worry about cartoons is your inference – I never said it, youre projecting. I know all about Piss Christ and the rest, so Bloody Mary’s nothing new. I’m not blind. I know minority groups of whatever stripe get hot under the collar about every real or perceived insult. I’m a member of a minority group myself.

You don’t give a toss about offending Jews, gays or apostates, so why should anyone give a toss about offending you or other Muslims? Neither you nor I are above criticism.

The difference with shouting fire is that everybody is at risk of being injured in a stampede, in comparison to Jews feeling offended. It is a silly comparison.

You may “hate nazi’s more then anyone else” but i have them just as much as i hate all bad people. Therefore im not going to only avoid offending jewish sentiments which is what occurs in europe in contrast to the slander muslims receive.

And now furthermore you can lose the implication that only muslims worry about cartoons as the catholics are the current set of cartoon protestors.

Fascism kills people. Cartoons about some dead dude don’t, whether that dude’s Mohammed, Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Big difference between someone’s sensitivities and someone’s life.

Your religious ideology and its founder should no more be protected from criticism than Republicanism and George Bush. Good grief, how do Republicans sleep at night with all those offensive Steve Bell cartoons?

I don’t agree with the holocaust denial laws because I believe people should be free to be shown up for the vile scum they are. But the laws came in to stop the rise of fascist parties, and the people who passed those laws thought that encouraging people to believe the Nazis were nice people besmirched by the Evil Jew (TM) was the equivalent of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.

Why are you obsessed with this idea that Europeans care about the sensibilities of Jews so much? We don’t. There are antisemitic comments and digs at Jehovah all the time in the European press.

And there were other people besides Jews who were murdered at Auschwitz. The UK’s done little for disabled people, but they’re ‘protected’ by the same holocaust denial laws. And some disabled people are Muslim. They’d have gone to the gas chambers, too.

Why should we not care about whether a disabled Muslim can get into a shop but take steps to prevent the rise of fascism that would gas them (or hang them or stone them or bury them in sewage)?

Because we hate Nazis more than we hate anyone else.

It’s you who are so keen to turn this into a Jews versus Muslims thing. No one else gives a toss.

The Iranian presidents comments on wiping Israel off the map is a seperate issue.

This is not about people “poking their nose in”.

European countries including Austria advocated freedom of speech arguements in publishing and republishing the cartoons that offended, slandered and stereotyped Muslims. In a clear act of hypocrisy, Austria now ignores freedom of speech because Irving denied the holocaust.

So with reference to your radio discussion, why is it that offending muslims is freedom of speech in Europe but offending Jews is not?

I have posted an article about it at BLOGCRITICS

that has been dicsussed and since the Mullahs don’t like football, it also has been discarded. Besides, the idea of football is to bring people together.

However, the caricature trouble II where a German paper made a joke about our army childishly insisting on policing the World Cup ended up with the caricaturist getting death threats from the Iranians[1].

Even so, the Iranian team are still warmly invited, and most Germans make a distinction between mullahs and normal Iranians, we have experience with living in a fascist state and know exactly what it is like to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, and so, it would be out of the question to let the mullahs spoil the last bit of legal fun the Iranians have.

Cinnamon, who hopes the Iranian team will do well!

[1] Germans are not known for their capacity for humour, but at least we found a nation that definitly beats us here, comprehensivly. *smirk*

If collective punishment works in both directions then Germany could boycott Iran’s participation in the World Cup. It would be easier than making empty threats against the President.

I hope they will be able to forget the terrible sight eventually.

And yeah, I think it is sad that the woman gave up on her own life, unforgivable that she killed her children, and tragic that her mom followed her.

But in a way I don’t have sympathy with the two women, because those woman didn’t have an impossible position to improve upon, but they just ran from life, instead of running their life.

“but nevertheless, I am sure you do”

“Anyway, I was just wondering if a tear rolled from raz’s cheek as he thought that tragic thought *sniff sniff*”

Yeah because these deaths:

http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,271007,00.jpg

are really a laughing matter, aren’t they Jay.

I really don’t think you and I disagree about this issue at all. All my criticisms of it are founded in the same principle that we criticise those things we dislike – NON NEGOTIABLE principles of freedom of speech. My opinion on the play is couched in those parameters – and made at a safe distance – as a piece of representation and art.

You are correct in that this wont cut it.