My opinion, the supershort version:
Perhaps it was not very smart or sensitive, but we do have every right to publish them. We are not tied to their religious rules. And the more they protest, the more we have the duty to stick by our right.
Supershort version, the end.
I guess I'm in a minority that supports a majority of Muslims a little more here. Though I understand everyone's arguments. I just feel it wasn't necessary. But the reaction of the Muslim world is blown out of proportion, too.
Posted by: Michelle on Sat February 4, 2006 at 0:06I agree that it wasn't necessary, absolutely not. The intention was obviously not to offend anyone so it wasn't very well thought through, because in the end it did offend.
But that does not affect the general principle, which is that we must not let ourselves be intimidated by other people's religious rules.
Muslims are not allowed to depict the prophet Mohammed. They cannot impose this on us. And although I personally see no benefit in drawing a picture of Mohammed with a bomb, other than pissing of Muslims, it must be my right to do so.
(and jaja I'm aware of the heightened sensibilities because of the power distribution & imperialism and whatnot. it's a difficult situation. but certain principles must remain)
Posted by: Clarissa on Sat February 4, 2006 at 0:27I see this from both points of view, But Yes, it was totally unecessary to RE-publish them.
Who knows exactly what the consequences will be for others that will now stem from this. How dangerous!!
re-publishing was particularly necessary 
here's my depiction of Mohammed: 
lol @ short version, i like that 
but the whole point of freedom of speech is that you cant be defamatory. there are still, i dunno, guidelines about freedom of speech.
someone raised the point that we arent alowed to publish pornography in news papers because its offensive to some people, i dont see what the big difference is when it comes to offensive things about releigion.
though everyone does seem to be overreacting just a little...
Posted by: snow on Mon February 6, 2006 at 1:59"someone raised the point that we arent alowed to publish pornography in news papers because its offensive to some people, i dont see what the big difference is when it comes to offensive things about releigion."
I agree! More porn for all!
we arent alowed to publish pornography in news papers because its offensive to some people
Totally different thing IMO. They don't publish porn in newspapers because a lot of people wouldn't buy them any longer. You print what your target audience wants to see (of course in this instance there would also be the underage thing).
You wouldn't publish tits in the Telegraph either because its readership would be shocked - but Telegraph readers won't start torching houses of Sun readers just because they have tits in their newspaper!?
So that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. And showing pics of Mohammed is not defamatory - religion is a totally private thing and we are not muslims.
Now if we talk about the general idea of "all muslims are terrorists" that was conveyed with some of these cartoons - sure, that's debatable, but then we can start searching thru their press for generalisations along the lines of "the West is evil" and we would find loads too. It's stupid - from both sides - but there is nothing to get so damm worked up about.
mmm. I see your point. And the fact that jokes, or politically incorrect comments about any and everyone are made all the time and dont evoke such a violent reaction.
Are these cartoons to be viewed somewhere? 
No, that would be blasphemous. 
*ahem*
Seriously, they're all over the place. Here for instance.
Posted by: Clarissa on Tue February 7, 2006 at 10:52Ok Im completely sold on your viewpoint Clarissa.
Someone wrote a great article in the sydney morning herald today about it and intolerance from muslims etc.
I completely agree with you now. and it's starting to get really scary, like the taliban offering money to people for killing military in denmark etc. feck, thats hardcore.
Meh I wish they'd never published them. I think I'd rather not have freedom of speech than a bunch of mad muslims on my neck.
Posted by: JarJar on Thu February 9, 2006 at 8:53lol, can you imagine what life would be like without freedom of speech?
the whole situation is very depressing.
I think the cartoons were vert stupid and asking for trouble but I also think the response has been totally ridiculous-far too over the top and thats coming from a Muslim.
But then maybe I'm not the right person to comment on it. I don't feel like I fit into my community at all
I do think they have been too sensitive tho- for example my aunt was whinging to me on the phone yesterday about how they 'never do this to other religion'. I wanted to start a rant ('life of brian' anyone?! or how about that recent Jerry Springer opera thing?)but thought whats the bloody point? I'd only get her tutting at me and telling me i'm not a good Muslim.
I find it better to keep quiet cus i just end up losing my temper and arguing.
Well that was my 2 cents.
I was wondering when you would comment on this.
lol. i've had a weird few days.I havent been watching the news or anything so didnt even hear about this till someone asked me what i thought about it (the blank look i gave back made me look extremely stupid)
i think im gonna do an entry about it in my blog too!
Oh yeah I'd like to read an entry about it.
*lol* @ not knowing about it until someone asked you.
Posted by: Clarissa on Thu February 9, 2006 at 21:43