Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Anti-Semite expression should be banned by Amazon?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 44 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 22 Sep 2011 08:22:31 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 22 Sep 2011 12:55:12 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 08:33:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Sep 2011 08:59:24 BDT
Yangonite says:
I guess the problem is deciding what anti-semitic comment actually is.

To some, simply standing up for liberal values can be termed by others as anti-semitism.

Of course there is the really nasty anti-jewish stuff that no one can deny is anti-semitic (in the narrower, and more widely accepted definition of a-s) spouted by the far right.

Also, the liberal values stuff uttered by people without racist/political agendas can be hijacked and misused by the far right/racists.

A difficult one.

Posted on 22 Sep 2011 08:49:19 BDT
Frederick says:
Technically, the term "semitic" applies to Jews, Arabs and Palestinians.

Posted on 22 Sep 2011 08:49:46 BDT
Frederick says:
.... and other peoples.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 09:00:15 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Anti bigots are okay by me though.

Posted on 22 Sep 2011 09:54:40 BDT
I'm sorry, you want to ban people being anti semitic? Or ban people calling people anti-semitic?

Either way, all opinions must be allowed in free debate.

Posted on 22 Sep 2011 10:20:57 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 1 Nov 2011 18:46:59 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 10:32:30 BDT
Yangonite says:
Hi Ciaran

Is your post about anti-semitism or anti-ryanism?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 10:35:57 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 1 Nov 2011 18:47:00 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 10:39:18 BDT
Yangonite says:
I tend to go with Mr. RDG - bottling up opinion is not good for anyone in the long run.

However, I still think there should be some limits. The anti-islamic Danish cartoons went too far, for instance.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 10:40:59 BDT
Yangonite says:
Sometimes you just have to let these things go.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 10:42:10 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 1 Nov 2011 18:47:00 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 10:56:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Sep 2011 10:56:42 BDT
"The anti-islamic Danish cartoons went too far, for instance."
This is my Fourth attempt at posting this because I keep accidentally using banned language.

1) the paper printed 12 pictures, which people could look at, or not, as they chose.
2) The pictures depicted
a)On a blue background, the caricaturized version of journalist and writer Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the turban" is a Danish expression (originating in the play Aladdin by Danish poet and playwright Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger) meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for his book.
b) The Islamic star and crescent merged with the face of Muhammad; his right eye is the star, the crescent surrounds his beard and face.
c) Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed (shahadah) written on the bomb.
d) A gentle styled caricature of Muhammad wearing loose pants with his arms tucked in the sleeves of a type of loose fitting tunic. His outfit is likely a salwar kameez. A glowing crescent around his turban suggests a halo or possibly a pair of horns.
e)A schematic stick drawing of five almost identical figures. Each of them resembles a headscarf seen from the side and has a Star of David and a crescent where the face should be. A poem on oppression of women is attached to the cartoon: "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!", which could be translated as: "Prophet, you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke!" The poem is in the form of a grook, short, aphoristic poems created by the late Danish poet and scientist Piet Hein.
f) Muhammad with a walking stick seemingly on a desert trek, with the sun on the left, low on the horizon. He has a concerned expression on his face. He is leading by rope a donkey or mule behind him that is carrying a burden.
g) A nervous caricaturist at work, sweating profusely, looks over his shoulder and partially hides what he's doing with his left arm as he shakily draws the portrait of a bearded keffiyeh-wearing man, labelled "MOHAMMED". There is but one light on in the room he is in and it only shines from directly above his head covering only the drawing he works on.
h)This drawing pictures a scene in an oriental palace. Two angry Muslims charge forward one holding a scimitar, the other holding a bomb and possibly carrying a rifle or scimitar on his back, while their leader (presumably Muhammad) addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde", referring to a drawing in his hand. In English, his words are: "Relax, friends, at the end of the day, it's just a drawing by a 'South Jutlander' infidel".
i)A 7th grade Middle-Eastern looking boy in front of a blackboard. Sticking out his tongue, he points to a Persian passage written on the board with chalk, which translates into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that he is a second-generation child of immigrants to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written "FREM" and then in a new line "-TIDEN". Fremtiden means the future, but Frem (forward) is also the name of a Valby football team whose uniforms resemble the boy's shirt. The cartoonist who drew this particular cartoon was the first to receive death threats and left his home in Valby.
j)Muhammad wearing an imamah (turban) and prepared for battle, with a kilij in his hand and likely a scimitar tucked in a shoulder strap scabbard behind him. He is flanked by two women in niqabs, having only their wide open eyes visible through band shaped eye openings while an equivalently sized band shaped black bar censors his eyes as though it was cut from one of the niqabs. His face is quite obscured by a thick grey beard and bushy eyebrows.
k) Muhammad, dressed like a mullah, stands on a cloud as if in Heaven, greeting freshly arrived dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!" Translated in English: "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!", an allusion to the reward of seventy two virgins promised to Islamic martyrs (known as Shahid).
l) A police line-up of seven people wearing turbans, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham" ("Hm... I can't really recognise him"). Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic Hippie, (2) right-wing politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad (6), generic Indian Guru, or possibly Danish stand-up comedian Omar Marzouk, and (7) journalist and writer Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's public relations, call and get an offer").

Where is the terrible line too far in that comedy? Some of it isn't very funny but it's not destructive. It didn't kill anybody or cost anybody anything. How is that going too far?

Sympathisers like you do more harm than the terrorists at times.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 11:25:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Dec 2012 19:22:05 GMT
David Groom says:

'The anti-islamic Danish cartoons went too far, for instance.'

What you mean is that we should all cravenly pander to the demands of the religious for respect for their beliefs. Well, I'm sorry but in my view, religions anywhere, have no 'right' to respect and should have no expectation that those of us who don't subscribe to their religious view should have to bow to their wishes. In short we should be free to regard it in any way we wish. If that includes silly cartoons about Mohammed or watching the Jerry Springerr Opera, so be it.

Does that mean we should be as insulting as we wish? No, but it equally means that we shouldn't cave in to avoid offence at any cost for fear of violence from supporters of that religion we have offended. In that way the religious can use the 'insult' card every time to suppress the views of those with whom they disagree and that's a very dangerous path.

And whilst its funny in a macabre sort of way, I was always amused by the signs and slogans of the London protestors about the cartoons, who on the one placard proclaimed that they were being insulted, on the next proclaimed islam to be a religion of peace and on the next called for the execution of those who published them. I thought all that was going too far for set of cartoons produced in a country which has no islamic base and where those who are non-believers should be free to ridicule if they wish, without the kind of reaction we saw. So, if you want to give rights to not be offended to these people then you'd better give the equal right to people such as myself who are offended by having that freedom curtailed. That is an imposible pathway. It is for this reason that I don't think that anything should have been done about the cartoons and I certainly don't think that religions should be given any kind of automatic 'right' to impose its views on others, even obliquley through curtailing freedom of speech.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 13:56:20 BDT
Yangonite says:
Hi David

It's good to see you have not disappeared completely.

We have had this very same argument re. the Danish cartoons before. I do not see any mileage in simply re-iterating our previous views and arguments.

I will however, be replying to Mr. RDG later.

Posted on 22 Sep 2011 14:29:12 BDT
David Gloom comes out with something vaguely reasonable....Shock

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 15:28:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Sep 2011 15:29:01 BDT
I look forward to it, but maybe I should give you a little more to work with.

Free thought is the unalienable right, you take my right to think what I want, you take everything.
Free speech is the second right. It must be the case that every idea can be tested for its merits and openly discussed for the betterment of mankind. The only case where a limit should be imposed on free speech is where the speech is directly designed to incite harm, for example telling people to kill others in such a way as your instruction will likely be believed and acted upon.

As soon as you censor an idea's expression whole sale, rather than just those forms of expression which are harmful you have crossed the line, because now there is an idea that can survive not on its merits but by being protected.

Every individual should have the right to draw mohammed, use his name, burn a koran, tell a muslim he's wrong, tell a muslim his faith makes him a worthless excuse for a human being. People should be allowed to express these ideas, because only by allowign their expression can we be sure all valid points and the arguments agaisnt invalid one's are expressed.

If the drawing of a mohammed offends you see the below

o .. o
/\ ./ \
One of those stick figures is Mohammed, which one offends you?

Posted on 22 Sep 2011 16:10:10 BDT
Christian Zionists, for example, believe that the road to heaven on earth lies through a final battle of Armageddon in which all non-born-again Christians, and two-thirds of all Jews, will be killed. No wonder then that the Anglican clergyman Naim Ateek called Christian Zionism `the worst anti-Semitism one can imagine'.

We are all familiar with the tired old Zionist claim that all anti-Zionism is really anti-Semitism in disguise. The existence of Christian Zionism proves that there are anti-Semites who are pro-Zionist. There are of course also anti-Zionists who are anti-Semites. There are anti-Semites on both sides of the argument about Zionism.

Posted on 22 Sep 2011 17:37:10 BDT
Tom_1 says:
Justice in Palestine. World Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Sep 2011 19:08:53 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Sep 2011 12:52:42 BDT
Yangonite says:
Hi Mr Rd G

All you are doing is expressing a widely held opinion concerning totally unfettered freedom of speech.
This opinion is not held by a very large number of muslims. So who is correct - you or the muslims?

For your argument to be convincing it needs to address the issue of the sensitivity muslims have for criticism of their faith.

In an ideal world followers of Islam would not be offended by mickey-taking of their religion. But the fact is - they are. This has always been the case and probably always will be.
You could argue - 'well they shouldn't get offended' - but that is irrelevant. The fact is they do!

Now, in the light of this undeniable fact do we a) carry on regardless causing offence at every turn; or do we b) take into account their sensitivity and modify our words accordingly?
To do b) is no big deal is it? just a matter of filling the newspaper space with a joke about christianity or buddhism instead.

Only the naive can be believe that total freedom of speech can be applied to each and every situation. A bit of a cliche, I know, but your girlfriend/wife asks 'does my bum look big in this?' - you believe it does - so what do you say?

I used to work with a guy who was overweight and he was sensitive about it. I soon realised that frequently I would say things which were not intended to be 'sizist' but that he construed as criticism of his size anyway. He didn't manifest this by direct challenges but nevertheless it was obvious that he found the comments hurtful.

So what should I have done? - just carried on uncensored, thinking 'well, I have the right to say what I like - his problem, he should get over it' - or should I have modified my comments slightly to avoid causing emotional pain?
Which is the more socially intelligent of the two above approaches? Don't forget that if I had applied the former it would have probably prevented me from getting to know the guy, and getting to know the guy (as I did) proved ample payback for the small amount of self censorship.

The muslim-sensitivity thing is just the same as the above, albeit writ large on the international stage. The same principles apply. It's about living harmoniously together, showing consideration for others.

Of course there is an added dimension to causing offence to the Islamic faith and that is that it persuades certain individuals that they are justified in perpetrating terrorist acts.
Again, they are completely wrong in this, but that is what they do regardless. Therefore from this angle it is also ill advised to cause offence.
Imagine that a Danish muslim was so outraged by the cartoons that he committed a terrorist atrocity killing many innocents. Therefore there would be a direct causal link between cartoons and the dead.
Try telling the bereaved families that inspite of their loss the cartoons were justified, because unbridled freedom of speech is of paramount importance.
Expediency must trump idealism in this case.

Quoting from your two two previous posts:

"Where is the terrible line too far in that comedy?"

Don't forget your mind is already made up on this matter, and also that you are seeing this through non-muslim eyes (I assume).
If you were muslim you would almost certainly see it very differently. Don't forget that in Islam it is prohibited to make any image of mohammed, so making an image which is a p***-take is incredibly offensive.

" The only case where a limit should be imposed on free speech is where the speech is directly designed to incite harm, "

So were the Danish editors so stupid as to believe that their cartoon would not incite people to cause harm?
If not, then by your own reasoning it should not have appeared.

"One of those stick figures is Mohammed, which one offends you?"

Neither, you can say what you like about islam to me without causing any offence whatsoever. You see, I am not a muslim.

"Sympathisers like you do more harm than the terrorists at times."

As you can see from my last comment I am no sympathiser. I am arguing for respect for others.

The real harm is caused by the intransigents like you who think that their idea justifies the consequences i.e. inciting nutters to terrorism.

" Does that mean we should be as insulting as we wish? "

The cartoons were *designed* to be as insulting as possible, it was no accident that muslims were outraged. It was intended.

"we shouldn't cave in to avoid offence at any cost for fear of violence from supporters of that religion we have offended."

It's not 'caving in', it's refraning from publishing something deliberately designed to cause insult - hardly caving in.

OK so those two previous quotes are taken, erroneously from DG's piece.

"As soon as you censor an idea's expression whole sale, rather than just those forms of expression which are harmful you have crossed the line, because now there is an idea that can survive not on its merits but by being protected"

You appear to be arguing the wider case here. I am not. I am arguing about the publication of the cartoons solely. But, no idea would have 'been protected' if the cartoons were not published - just the capacity to cause emotional upset would have been limited.

I think the main flaw in your argument is that you obviously have not considered the muslims viewpoint and merely dogmatically quote the ideas that you believe to be right. This formula cannot provide a convincing argument.

Ciaran said earlier

" but it does raise the question of how and who decides whats off limits - for criticism or ridicule "

I think therin lies the nub of the dilemma - who indeed does decide what is off limits? To say 'I do because I am right' without substantiating argument just does not wash.

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 16:14:20 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 15 Dec 2012 12:46:26 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Dec 2012 17:02:12 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 17:06:37 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 14 Dec 2012 17:09:34 GMT]

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 17:13:00 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 14 Dec 2012 17:21:23 GMT]

Posted on 14 Dec 2012 18:07:09 GMT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
This Country Is A Laughing Stock. 75 9 seconds ago
Regardless of who the next Labour Party leader is, the party itself is unelectable... 46 3 minutes ago
Children In Poverty... 3 5 minutes ago
Is Sport News? 1620 7 minutes ago
Why there will be no second EU Referendum and all the Remainers need to grow up. 11 27 minutes ago
Come on Iceland.... 113 28 minutes ago
Is "traditional" UK politics on the verge of extinction? 103 35 minutes ago
EU Referendum Poll of Polls 88 1 hour ago
Britain, the land where democracy died. Politicians suggest ignoring THE PEOPLE and THE REFERENDUM. 9 1 hour ago
This is what happens when you give the working class the vote say top London middle class liberal MPs. 1 1 hour ago
Brexit explained, simply and effectively. 12 1 hour ago
Another day, another celebrity paedophile 162 3 hours ago

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  44
Initial post:  22 Sep 2011
Latest post:  16 Dec 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions