One of the more absurd aspects of this stuff about images of Mohammed is that thousands of images of Mohammed exist all over the islamic world, in many different styles and dating from many different periods of history, as they always have done. There are also many such images in the UK (for example the painting in the Great Hall at Lincoln's Inn, London). This notion of images of Mohammed being "offensive" is not a 1400 year-old tradition - it is a recent innovation, contrived as an excuse by people who were looking for something to get offended about. This makes it all the more disgraceful that the British media, including the BBC, have capitulated so cravenly to this nonsense.
If Muslims were a movement, not a religion would people's views differ? The Nazis weren't tolerated once the war started.
If if there are no images of the prophet - the blessings of Allah be upon him - how the fuck can they be offended. The painting might be if his younger gay brother Maurice.
I think that this is a hugely significant point. Everyone has jumped on the "I am Charlie" bandwagon when they are not Charlie at all. Charlie Hebdo is anti religion and has ridiculed it constantly. It has delighted in showing scurrilous cartoons of the Prophet, Jesus, the Pope - anyone it has felt like. The more taboo they are to be ridiculed, the more Charlie Hebdo has ridiculed them. This is true freedom of expression: no holds barred, say what you think and if you want to get offended about it, hard cheese. True courage would be for all editors to do the same. It is unlikely that the terrorists will gun down every single media outlet. By not doing this, it endangers the few that have any balls.
On a lighter note, it seems that good old Fish and Chips is Jewish! Fish and chips - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If someone drew a gorilla representing one of the black members of parliament would it still be the same freedom to express a view that would be screamed about and protected? I think not. So the media has been self censoring since the 80's when it comes to racial satire or slur. Rightly so. This is nothing other than redtop bandwagon jumping, its popular to knock religion and allegedly intellectually linked. To some they are equally offensive. No cartoon ever drawn deserves being shot for though.
Knocking religion is in no way the same as racial slurs. You can choose what fairy story to believe in, or none, but you can't choose your ethnic origin. A little bit if thought required before posting I believe. And I'm pissed!
Easy to say when you work at ASDA. Journalists are always at the sharp end as they record the first draft of history. Engage brain before you respond please.
Speed_Triple, don't forget to look into a job at Waitrose, too. After you finish probation, you will own a piece of the company! Stay safe now!
More gibberish from the Yorkie bar. Where did you read that apostrophes are used for emphasis? Christmas cracker joke? Absolute bollocks. Apostrophes are used only to denote a possessive or a truncated construction - as in he's well, it's good, everything's wonderful etc- except if you're a greengrocer who sells potatoe's of course! It's itself is a bit of an exception. The apostrophe there flags up a missing i, but is never a possessive. Grammarians had to jump one way or the other to avoid confusion. I personally think it's should be the possessive form but it isn't. It's the truncated form and the possessive form is its, which always looks a bit odd. Oh, and your post doesn't need the capital L in language as it's not a proper noun. Just saying!
Tesco pay more and I would get to exhibit rude, or at the very least insouciant behaviour, to customers. Yes insouciant is an English word - nicked from the French admittedly, but in most English dictionaries.
It is true that it is easy for us sitting safely in our armchairs to criticise others for their cowardice. If an individual journalist, cartoonist, comedian or editor says that he dares not write or say anything to "offend" terrorists because he fears for the lives of himself and his family, well that is perfectly understandable and one has to sympathise. It is massive, powerful empires like Murdoch's and institutions like the BBC which are truly cowardly. They are hasty to proclaim their enthusiasm for freedom of speech when they are under fire for their own disgraceful behaviour, as a way of fending off any kind or restraints; and yet they fail totally when a genuine freedom of speech issue arises as it has this week. Another point is that admitting you are frightened is honest and genuine, but waffling about muslims being entitled not to be offended is just a cop-out.
You must be pissed, you seem to think everyone in the world has the exact same view of this wondeful world of ours as you. I would find an image as I described above offensive. I would not find the picture of jesus doing Mohammed up the arse offensive. Go to south USA. They will be the polar opposite. Point made.
just explain where I'm wrong by producing some evidence for your erroneous views on the use of apostrophes and I will back down and proclaim Yorkshire God's own land and not a godforsaken rural backwater.
But Murdoch and the DG aren't the ones who'll be killed are they? As I said, it's good to engage the brain before commenting.
