Channel 4 censorship

I think that Muslims find any depiction of Mohammed to be offensive - at least that was what I was told several years ago

Not all Muslims though. And the depiction of Mohammed is to be seen in many places in the Muslim world.

But, that's not the point. As a Christian, I find many depictions and texts offensive, but I would not demand censorship or make death threats.

I bow to your greater knowledge MiceElf. Like you I find some depictions of Christ offensive but wouldn't make threats.

zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo.full/

Interesting, MiceElf - Link 'unavailable'. I have yet to see the uncensored cartoon. Crazy.

How on earth does the writer and lead actor in Citizen Khan get away with his mickey taking of the muslim religion - let alone the BBC for airing it?

If you Google historal images of Mohammed you may be able to access through a link there.

kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/on-the-importance-of-the-right-to-offend/

The right to insult all religions is important, and should be cherished, Sunny Hundal

I'm not sure I agree with "insulting" any religion. The word implies deliberately trying to be unpleasant and provocative about someone's beliefs.

I think the word "offending" is more acceptable as it has a slightly different connotation. People take offence about all sorts of things and it seems to me that it's quite difficult to go through life without, whether deliberately or unintentionally, offending somebody or other through what we say or how we behave.

I do think people ought to be able to express an opinion about any religion or any other subject, although I don't agree with those who set out to be be deliberately inflammatory. Then I suppose the comment could be made "what is inflammatory to one person isn't necessarily inflammatory to another".

It's a difficult one. But it does seem wrong that Channel 4 can make such a decision. If they are self-censoring because they are worried about actual physical repercussions, that's a matter of concern for everybody. Everybody should be able to express an opinion without being fearful of repercussions.

The thing is though, eloethan, that what I may find acceptable, person B may find offensive and person C may find insulting. You can mix those combinations up anyhow you like. C could say something i find insulting but which s/he thinks is perfectly acceptable and not in the teensiest bit rude. And so on.

If I find something insulting, I say do. I don't send death threats! This is what this problem is all about: Islamists (i.e. extremist jihadist muslims) are just looking for things to get violent about.

Sorry, but that simply won't do in a democratic society. Of course they and I and you will see and hear things we don't like. We can argue our case or we can lump it but we can't say "you can't say that" unless it is a call to violence.
The Channel4 censorship is ridiculous. Worse, it is giving in to bullying and thuggery.

Which is why I feel that the matter should be what is defined in law. The law against blasphemy is defunct, but there is the Public Order Act under which prosecutions can made about behaviour intended to cause harassment alarm or distress. There is a great deal of case law on the various sections of this act, and I think we shall see more as the years go on.

I also feel that context matters. That is why I felt the Channel 4 News self censorship was wrong. This a programme watched by a certain demographic, not by sensitive violets, or those of little understanding.

I agree with Eloethan that giving offence gratuitously without regard to audience or context is not only unnecessary, but is, in fact, counter productive. Reasoned debate is more likely to lead to some meeting of minds than insults which just leave a person angry and impotent.

Yes, I do see both your points and it is obviously totally unacceptable for people to send death threats or threats of any kind, even if they have been seriously maligned or insulted.

Much as I agree with everyone having freedom to say what they like, it was still pretty daft of that prospective MP to do it, though.

Writing in the Guardian Maajid Nawaz said 'I hope it will send a message that Muslims are able to see things they dislike and yet remain calm and pluralistic. I did it for Salman Tazeer the governor of Punjab assassinated for calling for a review of Pakistan's colonial era blasphemy laws, for Malala Yusufzai shot for going to school, and for Muhammed Asghar a mentally ill British man sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan.'

I don't agree that Nawaz's statement that he wasn't offended by something was daft. A cartoon is, in fact, harmless. Is it daft to stand up for freedom against bullies and thugs? I think not.

Nobody has to be offended by a cartoon even if they think it disgusting (which a picture of two men saying hello is not). Some people choose to manufacture outrage and to express it outrageously (death threats).

Here is what the HuffPo says about the lily-livered censorship farce

thatbags but Nawaaz is the LibDem PPC who tweeted the cartoon!

People were talking about J&M cartoons and in particular, that one, but it wasn't shown on the programme Nawaz was on. So, for the benefit of people who hadn't followed the story so far, he tweeted it and repeated that he didn't find it offensive.

Then the outrage brigade went mad.

And C4 cowtowed to the thugs instead of standing up for the BETTER culture of freedom of expression. This is what bugs me most about the whole thing and similar episodes when we are spineless and don't stand up for BETTER values because we have been bullied into submission by mad religiacs.

This is not an islamic country. We are allowed to say that something is ridiculous if that's what we think. We are allowed to say that a harmless cartoon is inoffensive. People who claim to be offended (which is not all muslims in this case; Nawaz is muslim for a start) just have to be offended and deal with that in a civilised way – one which does not include violence or threats of violence of any kind.

It doesn't actually matter if some muslims believe that images of their prophet are haram (or whatever the word is). Those rules do not apply to people who do not share that belief.

This is a continuation of the ridiculous treatment of the LSE students when they were harassed for wearing T-shirts depicting the same cartoon.

There was the Sikh play in the Midlands that was pulled from the theatre, the major brouhaha about Jerry Springer the Opera which was still shown on television, the pantomime with the LSE students' that bags mentioned, something else recently that has gone out of my mind and probably many more instances of particular religious groups attempting and sometimes succeeding in censorship. It is a very worrying trend.

Free speech must include the right to be offensive, deliberately or inadvertently. I can't help feeling that these fervent religious believers, if that's what they are, must think of their gods and gods' favourites as pretty miserable creatures if they are so easily affected by a drawing or a story.

Nawaz is an interesting character. I'm impressed he continues to challenge the violence that seems to be so casually threatened by some people. Good on him. And, not good on Channel 4 to censor this. I'm with others posting here who uphold freedom of speech.

Actually, I think Shafiq is playing at politicking. He probably wants the support that Nawaz has (that which selected him as PPC). And Mo Ansar has the right name – moansar. Just a right old moan the whole bloody time.

I like this: @MsIntervention: Here's something to be offended about: Mo Ansar's + Mo Shafiq's undisguised contempt for our secular liberal society. t.co/cOyASRir99

It all boils down to the fact that anyone who doesn't like, and doesn't agree with our British, democratic [including full freedom of speech] way of life is free to leave.We are not about to give way to Muslim values, be it Sharia Law or honour killings, or fake [or real] outrage about what we can or cannot say or print.We are a very tolerant country, despite what some may think,but have to remain firm on this.