If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
such cartoons? 

If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?

If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
insulting, should the media obey?

If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
mollify their feelings?

If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
case of Muslims?

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 06:52:55 +0900, James Hammerton wrote
(in article ):

> If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
> MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
> such cartoons? 

no.

> If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
> offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?

no.
 
> If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
> communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
> insulting, should the media obey?

no.
 
> If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
> caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
> deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
> mollify their feelings?

no.
 
> If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
> stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
> should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
> case of Muslims?

because the jihadis are threatening to blow us up and cut our heads off and 
we're all a bunch of cowards.

to infinity and beyond.
-- 
the auroran sunset / tithonus / fennel
personal website: http://www.aoiko.net/
diary: http://www.aoiko.net/diary.php
party: http://www.emancipationparty.org/

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:52:55 +0000, James Hammerton
  

  typed:
>If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
>MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
>such cartoons? 
>
>If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
>offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?
>
>If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
>communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
>insulting, should the media obey?
>
>If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
>caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
>deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
>mollify their feelings?
>
>If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
>stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
>should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
>case of Muslims?

ok, ill have a guess....
is it because jihadis might threaten to kill you?


if i'm allowed more than one attempt...

is it because jihadis are 'special'?
is it because jihadis are more spiritual?
is it because jihadis walk noisily and carry big knives?


regards...

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In message , James Hammerton 
 writes
>If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should 
>stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups 
>should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the 
>case of Muslims?

Indeed and if other more salubrious mulsim activity say like in Keighley 
was considered incendiary could we now trust our 'free press' to report 
fully upon the minutiae.

After all once a precedent has been set....

-- 
Aramis Gunton

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 07:10:32 +0900, the auroran sunset 
wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 06:52:55 +0900, James Hammerton wrote
>(in article ):
>
>> If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
>> MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
>> such cartoons? 
>
>no.
>
>> If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
>> offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?
>
>no.
> 
>> If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
>> communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
>> insulting, should the media obey?
>
>no.
> 
>> If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
>> caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
>> deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
>> mollify their feelings?
>
>no.
> 
>> If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
>> stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
>> should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
>> case of Muslims?
>
>because the jihadis are threatening to blow us up and cut our heads off

I'd like emphasise your use the word jihadis here and emphasise you
did not say "Muslims", for the two are indeed not the same, though the
jihadis claim to be Muslims. 

If Islam really is a religion of peace the actions of the jihadis are
*betraying* ordinary decent Muslims (see another thread I started
elsewhere on this line). 

Ordinary decent Muslims should not stand for their religion to be
hijacked in this way.

> and 
>we're all a bunch of cowards.

Seems about the only real reason I can think of -- but I note you
*have* published the cartoons and therefore you are not part of the
"we" being referred to. 

I suppose the Grauniad has a Muslim readership they don't want to
offend too. That might apply to the other papers -- trying to hold
onto their market shares and trying to avoid their offices being
bombed or their editors receiving death threats.

James

--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/index.php

"James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
news:g0scu1t59t5d2itav8eq7m9v2k44jbv589@4ax.com...
> If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
> MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
> such cartoons?
>
> If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
> offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?
>
> If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
> communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
> insulting, should the media obey?
>
> If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
> caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
> deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
> mollify their feelings?
>
> If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
> stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
> should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
> case of Muslims?
>
> James
>
> --
> James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
> Contributor to Magna Carta Plus: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
> Magna Carta Plus News weblog: http://www.magnacartaplus.org/new
s/index.php

     Why can't absolutely anyone now complain that a depiction of them or 
some text written about them is offensive to them and expect to have it 
removed?

"the auroran sunset"  wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C00CA6E80070A1BCF060B550@news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 06:52:55 +0900, James Hammerton wrote
> (in article ):
>
>> If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
>> MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
>> such cartoons?
>
> no.
>
>> If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
>> offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?
>
> no.
>
>> If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
>> communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
>> insulting, should the media obey?
>
> no.
>
>> If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
>> caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
>> deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
>> mollify their feelings?
>
> no.
>
>> If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
>> stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
>> should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
>> case of Muslims?
>
> because the jihadis are threatening to blow us up and cut our heads off 
> and
> we're all a bunch of cowards.
>
       Cutting through all the sanctimonious waffle, you've hit the nail on 
the head.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:02:35 +0000, James Hammerton
  

  typed:

>I suppose the Grauniad has a Muslim readership they don't want to
>offend too. That might apply to the other papers -- trying to hold
>onto their market shares and trying to avoid their offices being
>bombed or their editors receiving death threats.

but the british fossil press is brave and courageous....
they keep telling me so every time they 'unmask' another 'randy vicar'

the british fossil media is the best in the world....just like
    the nhs, the school and our wonderful policemen....

and of course our great and benevolent leader

regards.

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:10:31 +0000 (UTC), "Fred"   

  typed:
>
>"James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
>news:g0scu1t59t5d2itav8eq7m9v2k44jbv589@4ax.com...
>> If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
>> MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
>> such cartoons?
>>
>> If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
>> offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?
>>
>> If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
>> communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
>> insulting, should the media obey?
>>
>> If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
>> caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
>> deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
>> mollify their feelings?
>>
>> If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
>> stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
>> should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
>> case of Muslims?

>     Why can't absolutely anyone now complain that a depiction of them or 
>some text written about them is offensive to them and expect to have it 
>removed? 

because you're not special so there....nah nah yah nanya

regards...

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:02:35 +0900, James Hammerton wrote
(in article ):

> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 07:10:32 +0900, the auroran sunset 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 06:52:55 +0900, James Hammerton wrote
>> (in article ):
>> 
>>> If the Labour party said that cartoons caricaturing or mocking their
>>> MPs and leaders deeply offended them, should the media stop producing
>>> such cartoons? 
>> 
>> no.
>> 
>>> If the Royal family said they found cartoons that mock the Royals
>>> offensive and hurtful, should the media stop producing those?
>> 
>> no.
>> 
>>> If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
>>> communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
>>> insulting, should the media obey?
>> 
>> no.
>> 
>>> If representatives of the USA said the Americans found cartoons
>>> caricaturing them or their president or their army or their people
>>> deeply offensive, should the media stop producing such cartoons to
>>> mollify their feelings?
>> 
>> no.
>> 
>>> If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you that the media should
>>> stop producing cartoons caricaturing (members of) the above groups
>>> should they claim to feel that way, why should it convince you in the
>>> case of Muslims?
>> 
>> because the jihadis are threatening to blow us up and cut our heads off
> 
> I'd like emphasise your use the word jihadis here and emphasise you
> did not say "Muslims", for the two are indeed not the same, though the
> jihadis claim to be Muslims. 

sure.

> If Islam really is a religion of peace the actions of the jihadis are
> *betraying* ordinary decent Muslims (see another thread I started
> elsewhere on this line). 
> 
> Ordinary decent Muslims should not stand for their religion to be
> hijacked in this way.

some aren't, but not nearly enough.
... i wonder how many would constitute enough..

>> and 
>> we're all a bunch of cowards.
> 
> Seems about the only real reason I can think of -- but I note you
> *have* published the cartoons and therefore you are not part of the
> "we" being referred to. 

i was doing an impersonation!

> I suppose the Grauniad has a Muslim readership they don't want to
> offend too. That might apply to the other papers -- trying to hold
> onto their market shares and trying to avoid their offices being
> bombed or their editors receiving death threats.

the more i come across, the less i believe these claims that drawing mohammed 
is forbidden.. any more than i'd believe the claims of some prod fundie that 
pictures of the saints are forbidden.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/4/19835/91574
as ab says, these cartoons are aimed at jihadists not 'islam' or sane 
muslims.

running a paper on the basis of avoiding death threats and bombs strikes me 
as more than a little contemptible.

to infinity and beyond.
-- 
the auroran sunset / tithonus / fennel
personal website: http://www.aoiko.net/
diary: http://www.aoiko.net/diary.php
party: http://www.emancipationparty.org/

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:31:47 +0900, the auroran sunset   

  typed:

>running a paper on the basis of avoiding death threats and bombs strikes me 
>as more than a little contemptible.

a good part of why the fossil media is dying and held in such 
      very low esteem..

regards....

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:52:55 +0000, James Hammerton
 wrote in uk.politics.censorship:
 
>If the leaders of Christian, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu  institutions or
>communities said they found cartoons mocking their prophets or leaders
>insulting, should the media obey?

Why should they....there is no incentive! No one will threaten to kill
'em let alone do the dirty deed. Come on now....get a gripp of
yourself old been. Why do you think the British political class is
running scare?

In MsgID within
uk.politics.censorship, 'abelard' wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:02:35 +0000, James Hammerton
>  
>
>  typed:
>
>>I suppose the Grauniad has a Muslim readership they don't want to
>>offend too. That might apply to the other papers -- trying to hold
>>onto their market shares and trying to avoid their offices being
>>bombed or their editors receiving death threats.
>
>but the british fossil press is brave and courageous....
>they keep telling me so every time they 'unmask' another 'randy vicar'
>
>the british fossil media is the best in the world....just like
>    the nhs, the school and our wonderful policemen....
>
>and of course our great and benevolent leader

I normally write off 90 percent of your utterances as pretentious and
ultimately flawed, but on that post I agree with every word.

-- 
Dave J.

Really like this - very well put. (Flash Anim)
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gentle.html

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 17:37:48 +0000, Dave J.   

  typed:
>In MsgID within
>uk.politics.censorship, 'abelard' wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:02:35 +0000, James Hammerton
>>  
>>
>>  typed:
>>
>>>I suppose the Grauniad has a Muslim readership they don't want to
>>>offend too. That might apply to the other papers -- trying to hold
>>>onto their market shares and trying to avoid their offices being
>>>bombed or their editors receiving death threats.
>>
>>but the british fossil press is brave and courageous....
>>they keep telling me so every time they 'unmask' another 'randy vicar'
>>
>>the british fossil media is the best in the world....just like
>>    the nhs, the school and our wonderful policemen....
>>
>>and of course our great and benevolent leader
>
>I normally write off 90 percent of your utterances as pretentious and
>ultimately flawed, but on that post I agree with every word.

oh great master...your gracious attention has made my day....
i can hardly praise and thank you sufficiently.....

please notice me again someday... 

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In MsgID within
uk.politics.censorship, 'abelard' wrote:

>>I normally write off 90 percent of your utterances as pretentious and
>>ultimately flawed, but on that post I agree with every word.
>
>oh great master...your gracious attention has made my day....
>i can hardly praise and thank you sufficiently.....

Fuckit, it was a compliment, but I wanted to make it clear that I usually
don't gain much from your posts. Point made, take it as you will.

Dave J.