Gair Rhydd published *those* cartoons?

[nightowl]

i've got mixed feeling on this whole issue. as i posted earlier i don't believe the students were motivated by any freedom of speech issue, they just saw the chance for a bit of cheap publicity and grabbed it. however, on the issue of the original publication of the cartoons on the one hand i can see the argument against publishing potentially inflammatory material in the current climate, whereas on the other hand part of me thinks why should what we do be dictated to by a bunch of religious lunatics.

 

[ZIZI]

I think its all been blown out of proportion. Its been an excuse to shout hatred against the West and Europeans and their religion which most of them appear not to understand in the first place. All these religious leaders have been a bit bizzare and go against what they preach. Give it a rest.

 

[llantwit]

I feel like I've been doing this for at least 1/2 a year now - it's fucked up in my opinion.

Every time I hear some wanker mouthing off about 'Islam' this, or 'Muslims' that (usually talking about suicide bombers or wife-beating, etc), I feel the need to have a go at what I see is a prejudiced attack that's basically just racism by proxy.

Said wanker then generalises some more, starts going on about politically correct lefty types sticking up for religious extremism... like they are some voice of the non-pc people, and that they can say what they like 'cos of 'freedom of speech', and that's supposed to be the end of it.

Now, I'm not sticking up for extremists - islamists can go fuck themselves and so can fundy xtians... but I'm not gonna stand by and let a huge group of people get tarred with the same brush, either. People might well have the 'freedom' to spout racist shit, but I've also got the freedom to challenge them on it, and shrilly crying 'Politically Correct' isn't a good enough argument either. It's called 'politically correct' because most of it is basically, well, correct, ok?

Just to clarify, I've not got a problem with general criticism of religion - I think they're all pretty wrong in general... but I do respect the right of others to practice religion, and even have some religious mates ( ) of a number of different faiths... quakers are the best, of course, but I EVEN know some sound muslims (shock horror), and from talking with them about the racist (yes, RACIST) shit they've been getting recently cos of the way they've been brought up/community they belong to/lifestyle choice they've made, I've seen how dangerous and irresponsible it can be to join in with the kind of vocal Islam bashing that's happening at the moment.

 

[llantwit]

And just for the record, I'm not screaming 'RACISM' for the sake of it here - I'm just saying that there's a whole culture of unquestioned racism that this whole debate slots very nicely into. You can't ingnore this context when taking a stand in the debate.

 

[Prefade]

Good grief....

What the hell is wrong with people today?

I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.

In response, a group of individuals got hold of one of the few unexpurgated copies, make thousands of copies of the offending page and plastered them around campus late at night. The result was that the censorship attempt failed.

Hopefully people at Cardiff uni will share the same sense of outrage and make sure that the censored newspaper is given as wide an audience as possible. Just reading about the whole thing makes my blood boil. Such grotesque censorship cannot and should not ever be tolerated.

[email protected] seems to be a good contact address to express your distaste for this suppression of free speech.

 

[llantwit]

Would you say the same about a cartoon that took the piss out of Judaism and Jews by apeing the holocaust?

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Would you say the same about a cartoon that took the piss out of Judaism and Jews by apeing the holocaust?

Or Anti-Irish cartoons that were widespread in the past in the context of imperialism in Ireland, as discussed in this thread:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=150673

These cartoon's aren't to do with religion - the right wing tabloid newspaper that printed them refused to print cartoons that might offend Christians - but politics.

The images include depictions of the Prophet of Islam being a terrorist, the subtext being that ALL muslims are terrorists. They are clearly racist and the left should condemn them.

They are part of an ideological project of demonising and denigrating Islam in order to justify the occupation of Muslim countries and the war on terror - afterall if Muslims are backward and crazed terrorists (as the cartoons try and seduce people into believing) then what choice does the West have, but to occupy the Middle East?

 

[Leon]

Anyone who's ever seen Gair Rhydd will know that it is THE most pretentious, up its own arse student newspaper ever. FFS it looks like the Telegraph.

To be honest, as a former Cardiff University student, I'm not at all surprised they printed it and I reckon they probably just did so because they thought it'd be "cool" to do so.

They are just a bunch of immature twats, and not worth all this.

 

[Col_Buendia]

What the hell is wrong with people today?

I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.

In response, a group of individuals got hold of one of the few unexpurgated copies, make thousands of copies of the offending page and plastered them around campus late at night. The result was that the censorship attempt failed.

Hopefully people at Cardiff uni will share the same sense of outrage and make sure that the censored newspaper is given as wide an audience as possible. Just reading about the whole thing makes my blood boil. Such grotesque censorship cannot and should not ever be tolerated.

[email protected] seems to be a good contact address to express your distaste for this suppression of free speech.

Oh do fuck off, you boring troll. If you're gonna troll the thread, at least try not to repeat what the demo-organiser-to-be Redstar was trolling with on page one.

And we *are* people at Cardiff Uni, and we're fed up seeing the media jump on the bandwagon of Islamophobia. But I'm sure you'll now repeat Redstar's page two comments, and thus this thread will continue to the Pearly Gates...

Capiche?

 

[cybertect]

What the hell is wrong with people today?

I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.

A bit of history from pre-institutional merger days.

I'm somewhat dating myself now, but the whole thing reminds me of the 1987 debacle over the former UWIST newspaper Impact that, embarrassed of funds, took some advertising from Barclays bank at a time when the JSU had them under boycott for their business involvement in South Africa. Political naiveté is probably the kindest judgement of the editorial staff.

Cue much surprise and indignation amongst the student population at large. The JSU threatened to withdraw any funding from Impact and embargo distribution... so the offending ads were rapidly recalled and overprinted with black. Barclays threatened a lawsuit for breach of contract and Impact had to hand the money back and then folded. [I've a vague recollection that the ads were subsequently put back in as an insert in response to Barclays' legal threats before the JSU closed them down and sent 'seek and destroy' teams round various University building to remove copies from circulation, which would only add to the comic fringe to the story].

Gair Rhydd, which was the University College of Cardiff paper did rather well out of the whole affair IIRC.

For my 2p, I don't think there's any justification for Gair Rhydd publishing cartoons that they know will be deeply offensive to a significant part of their readership. Do they still receive JSU funding?

 

[neprimerimye]

Not a bad post Nep, thanks. It seems to me like it leaves Muslims in the UK (and the rest of europe) out of the equation - that's my major beef here, tbh. There's already a climate of increasing racial and religious prejudice/hatred here and elsewhere in europe (anti muslim, anti-arab, anti-asylum seeker, anti-difference), and the continued REprinting of already dodgy and provocative texts like these just serves to stoke up the tensions. When I said it wasn't a free speech issue, I meant to say that that wasn't the most important issue for me - and point out that it shouldn't be seen ONLY as a free speech issue, as there's more important things going on here. I definitely wasn't calling for state censorship, or any shit like that, just expressing a personal opinion about why the cartoons shouldn't be reprinted.

Sure I agree with your sentiments but my post was primarily concerned with the opinions of the pro-censorship socialists on these boards. For what it's worth the publishing of one of the racist cartoons in Gair Rhydd was atttention seeking on the part of a student journo and signified nothing very much at all. My own view is that it is irresponsible at present and would be rude in any context to ridicule the religious views of others in this way.

You say that you oppose state censorship of the media and I'm pleased to learn this. But there are people on these boards who do want cartoons similar in content to these cartoons to be banned. In fact they support the passing o Blairs religious hatred laws which might well have made the publishing of these cartoons an offense. I write that the law might make it an offence because the only way to discover whether or not it would is to test it in court. So at bottom those who support the law wish to leave decisions on the subject to a few rich mostly white mostly male mostly nominally Christian Tony Blair appointed judges.

Personally I'd be quite happy if the cartoons had been censored as I consider them racist. For that matter they are also rubbish cartoons if you actually look at them. Heck you can ban or censor The Sun and Daily Mail too and I'll be a happer man. And how about censoring Jim Davidson that would be a good idea yes? Well no it wouldn't be really as it would also mean censoring other media that might be said by some to be classics but do contain materials which can be considered, and rightly so, as offensive to Islam and to Muslims. For example Dante and Cervantes among others. But even if we let these classics alone what of more recent cases such as Rushdie or the play that offended Sikhs recently? Do we ban or censor them? Or do we defend the right of artists and writers to say what they will? Frankly this is the question that the pro-ban 'socialists' and liberals here cannot or will not answer.

Some confuse the issue with the No Platform policy of the socialist left that opposes state bans on fascists but calls on the workers movement to prevent Free Speech for fascists as an exceptional measure because fascism is a threat to the free Speech of all. That this has nothing in common with calling on the state to ban a racist cartoon should be obvious.

 

[Redstar]

What the hell is wrong with people today?

I remember when I was at uni the student newspaper had to be "withdrawn" because of some small article that violated a nonsensical union rule.

In response, a group of individuals got hold of one of the few unexpurgated copies, make thousands of copies of the offending page and plastered them around campus late at night. The result was that the censorship attempt failed.

Hopefully people at Cardiff uni will share the same sense of outrage and make sure that the censored newspaper is given as wide an audience as possible. Just reading about the whole thing makes my blood boil. Such grotesque censorship cannot and should not ever be tolerated.

[email protected] seems to be a good contact address to express your distaste for this suppression of free speech.

Total agreement there mate and good to see a few voices of sanity and tolerance on this board at least. Fortunately the PC Thought Police are unable to censor this board... yet....

 

[chilango]

Sure I agree with your sentiments but my post was primarily concerned with the opinions of the pro-censorship socialists on these boards. For what it's worth the publishing of one of the racist cartoons in Gair Rhydd was atttention seeking on the part of a student journo and signified nothing very much at all. My own view is that it is irresponsible at present and would be rude in any context to ridicule the religious views of others in this way.

You say that you oppose state censorship of the media and I'm pleased to learn this. But there are people on these boards who do want cartoons similar in content to these cartoons to be banned. In fact they support the passing o Blairs religious hatred laws which might well have made the publishing of these cartoons an offense. I write that the law might make it an offence because the only way to discover whether or not it would is to test it in court. So at bottom those who support the law wish to leave decisions on the subject to a few rich mostly white mostly male mostly nominally Christian Tony Blair appointed judges.

Personally I'd be quite happy if the cartoons had been censored as I consider them racist. For that matter they are also rubbish cartoons if you actually look at them. Heck you can ban or censor The Sun and Daily Mail too and I'll be a happer man. And how about censoring Jim Davidson that would be a good idea yes? Well no it wouldn't be really as it would also mean censoring other media that might be said by some to be classics but do contain materials which can be considered, and rightly so, as offensive to Islam and to Muslims. For example Dante and Cervantes among others. But even if we let these classics alone what of more recent cases such as Rushdie or the play that offended Sikhs recently? Do we ban or censor them? Or do we defend the right of artists and writers to say what they will? Frankly this is the question that the pro-ban 'socialists' and liberals here cannot or will not answer.

Some confuse the issue with the No Platform policy of the socialist left that opposes state bans on fascists but calls on the workers movement to prevent Free Speech for fascists as an exceptional measure because fascism is a threat to the free Speech of all. That this has nothing in common with calling on the state to ban a racist cartoon should be obvious.

Nail and Head there Nep.

"No Platform" as I interpret it does not equal a top down ban.

It does not withdraw anyone´s right to say anything, merely forces people to be held responsible for exercising that right.

So, if a BNP member wanted to speak, fine they have that right but they may be held responsible for that speech by people...if you know what I mean .

Gair Rhydd journalists can print this crap, but might have to have eyes in the back of their head given the people they´ve chosen to offen by excersing their right to free speech.

Gair Rhydd, historically, fosters this kind of puerile nonsense anyway and aren´t worth worrying about as they have no influence upon any sort of social force anyway.

PS I don´t recall lefties joining in demos against the Life of Brian.

 

[Brockway]

PS I don´t recall lefties joining in demos against the Life of Brian.

Swansea council banned Life of Brian - can't remember if it was a Labour council or not tho.

 

[llantwit]

Sure I agree with your sentiments but my post was primarily concerned with the opinions of the pro-censorship socialists on these boards. For what it's worth the publishing of one of the racist cartoons in Gair Rhydd was atttention seeking on the part of a student journo and signified nothing very much at all. My own view is that it is irresponsible at present and would be rude in any context to ridicule the religious views of others in this way.

You say that you oppose state censorship of the media and I'm pleased to learn this. But there are people on these boards who do want cartoons similar in content to these cartoons to be banned. In fact they support the passing o Blairs religious hatred laws which might well have made the publishing of these cartoons an offense. I write that the law might make it an offence because the only way to discover whether or not it would is to test it in court. So at bottom those who support the law wish to leave decisions on the subject to a few rich mostly white mostly male mostly nominally Christian Tony Blair appointed judges.

Personally I'd be quite happy if the cartoons had been censored as I consider them racist. For that matter they are also rubbish cartoons if you actually look at them. Heck you can ban or censor The Sun and Daily Mail too and I'll be a happer man. And how about censoring Jim Davidson that would be a good idea yes? Well no it wouldn't be really as it would also mean censoring other media that might be said by some to be classics but do contain materials which can be considered, and rightly so, as offensive to Islam and to Muslims. For example Dante and Cervantes among others. But even if we let these classics alone what of more recent cases such as Rushdie or the play that offended Sikhs recently? Do we ban or censor them? Or do we defend the right of artists and writers to say what they will? Frankly this is the question that the pro-ban 'socialists' and liberals here cannot or will not answer.

Some confuse the issue with the No Platform policy of the socialist left that opposes state bans on fascists but calls on the workers movement to prevent Free Speech for fascists as an exceptional measure because fascism is a threat to the free Speech of all. That this has nothing in common with calling on the state to ban a racist cartoon should be obvious.

Totally agree. I've seen the no platform thing confused and muddled over this issue, too, and it's stupid.

 

[Redstar]

"70 years ago people on the Left went out and fought in Spain against Fascism " Oh Yeah, which side were you on then....

Here we go...the authoritarian Left getting up on their high horse. What would you have given us NWMN? Stalin instead of Franco probably...

Much has been made in recent days of the commitment to free speech in the Danish press. But Jyllands-Posten, the right wing paper that first published the racist caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, refused to print a cartoon of the resurrection of Jesus in 2003. The paper feared that publication of the cartoon would provoke anger among Christians. And in 1984 it campaigned against the artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen, who was commissioned by a local art club to paint the wall of a railway station. The work showed a naked Jesus with an erect penis.

And did the Christians burn down embassies, riot, and march around the streets chanting "Behead those who offend Christianity"? Or "Get ready for the next Holocaust"?

Did they?

The paper has shown no such sensitivity towards Muslims. Last September a news story appeared claiming that the writer Kåre Bluitgen was unable to find an illustrator prepared to work on his children’s book about Islam. Blutigen said that artists feared attacks if they illustrated the book. In fact the third artist asked to illustrate the book had agreed to do sn 30 September, Jyllands-Posten published its 12 caricatures, under the headline “The Face Of Mohammed”.

And as I've pointed out, a group of RIGHT WING Imams then took the pictures on a tour of the middle east, adding an extra few cartoons which mysteriously appeared from nowhere - so what exactly was their agenda then? There are 2 sides to this story...

Accompanying them was an article by Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, claiming, “Modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech.”

And here we come to the rub. If you agree with this interpretation of attitudes in the Moslem community then in the eyes of the Left you are basically a right-wing BNP supporter. But let's face it, it's true. The moslem world expects the West to accomodate to it's values - yet where is the tolerance of dissent and other religious outlooks in the Islamic world?

Let's talk about the extensive persecution of Christians in Pakistan or the attitudes of the extreme Wahabbi sects that run Saudi Arabia? Or the fact that in Iran they have published cartoons of Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler? And the fact that Iran have called for a commission to investigate whether the Holocaust ever happened?

And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too!

So what happened to the commitment of the Left to women's equality?

The pretentious, intellectual Left who so despise the opinions of the ordinary man on the street (except the 1% stupid enough to vote for them) have so boxed themselves into a corner they cannot see that they have effectively bankrupted themselves, politically and morally, by jumping into bed with a reactionary constituency, and all in the name of political expediency and perceived (if practically non-existent) electoral gain.

The Left have become a joke and a laughing stock.

 

[llantwit]

People have tried to engage with your arguments on here, but you haven't had the decency to reciprocate. Please stop reposting the same idotic non-arguments, and try to understand the positions people have taken. You're talking like everyone who disagrees with you is part of some disgraceful amorphous PC blob called 'THE LEFT', and you are the only voice of reason. Neither is true.
Oh, and when's that demo you're organising to support the student journo free speech heroes?

 

[Karac]

The way i see it this-im all in favour of free speech.
But i think the people who are publishing these cartoons are taking the piss.
Its just not a question of (as i think it is) all religions are shit.
At this moment in time-when the US is attempting to secure its oil supplies for the next 20 years.
When it is pure imperialism.

 

[jannerboyuk]

And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too!

Just out of interest where and when did this happen Redstar? Genuine question just very curious.
On a related note I won't join in the kicking you are getting on this thread but this 'western women' stuff is bollocks. 'Muslim' women (which can mean a thousand different things) born in this country or indeed moved here (for example http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/) don't fall into a simple division of western or muslim - and i know this from personal experience. Simply counterposing the two won't do.

 

[jannerboyuk]

Gair Rhydd journalists can print this crap, but might have to have eyes in the back of their head given the people they´ve chosen to offen by excersing their right to free speech.

And do you approve or disapprove of this reality?

 

[jannerboyuk]

The most sane response to this whole kerfuffle can be found here in my opinion:
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_muttawa_archive.html#113880890750348783
With a lot of humour this blogger (who is a saudi living in the UK) points two salient facts that just from perusing the general media coverage i didn't really connect: the cartoons were printed FOUR months ago and the offically sanctioned outrage in Saudi Arabia seemed to coincide with regimes failure yet again to adequately protect pilgrims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606002.stm).

 

[chilango]

And do you approve or disapprove of this reality?

A plague on both their houses.

 

[jannerboyuk]

Gair Rhydd journalists can print this crap, but might have to have eyes in the back of their head given the people they´ve chosen to offen by excersing their right to free speech.

A plague on both their houses.

Can I assume that the first post alludes to possible violence against the GR people for printing the cartoons? If so are you saying that printing these cartoons and physically assaulting someone for doing so is an equivalent act?

 

[nwnm]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Redstar
And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too!


Just out of interest where and when did this happen Redstar? Genuine question just very curious."

He's talking bollocks - but then he has done all the way through the thread....

 

[jannerboyuk]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Redstar
And as for the SWP! If the Islamic world isn't expecting US to bend to it's way of doing things, why is it you can go to SWP meetings to do with Islam and find them SEGREGATED with women separated from men and women expected to pass notes to the front of the room FFS! And I'm talking western women too!


Just out of interest where and when did this happen Redstar? Genuine question just very curious."

He's talking bollocks - but then he has done all the way through the thread....

I didn't ask for your opinion hack. I wouldn't trust you to tell me the name of your weekly newspaper without checking for myself afterwards.

 

[osterberg]

'Hack' is a bit unfair especially since he was in agreement.
I'd like to know where these segregated SWP meetings take place as well.
I'm all for free speech but should there be a right to incite islamophobia and racism?
Wouldn't Nick Griffin have been convicted if there was a law against the incitement of religious hatred?
Genuine questions.Not sure if I know the answers myself.

 

[chilango]

Can I assume that the first post alludes to possible violence against the GR people for printing the cartoons? If so are you saying that printing these cartoons and physically assaulting someone for doing so is an equivalent act?

Nah.

Simply that those responsible knew what they did was a provocation, in an incident that has led to violence and deaths around the world. They cannot be surprised if they were to get attacked.

Not saying its right, both sides are wrong if you ask me.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Swansea council banned Life of Brian - can't remember if it was a Labour council or not tho.

Cllr. Ray Davies from Caerphilly demonstrated against the "disgusting" Sex Pistols in the 70s, and apparently sang his own ditties outside their concert - unfortunately the kids preferred the Pistols - I saw a very funny clip of archive footage on a TV documentary. To be fair, Ray Davies was interviewed 25 years later and seemed to have re-considered his opposition.

 

[Brockway]

Cllr. Ray Davies from Caerphilly demonstrated against the "disgusting" Sex Pistols in the 70s, and apparently sang his own ditties outside their concert - unfortunately the kids preferred the Pistols - I saw a very funny clip of archive footage on a TV documentary. To be fair, Ray Davies was interviewed 25 years later and seemed to have re-considered his opposition.

They were singing hymns.

About a year earlier the Pistols played Cardiff Top Rank, The Stowaway in Newport and Bubbles nightclub, Swansea, on successive nights with barely a murmer of disapproval.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

The simple facts are these:

If cartoon's were published that depicted Arabs stereotyped as terrorists, then the left would be united in condemning them.

Now, Instead of Arabs, the cartoons imply that ALL Muslims are terrorists - through depictions of the founder of Islam with a turban shaped like a bomb.

Yet, instead of condemning the cartoons, sections of the left obsess about freedom to criticise religion, freedom of speech and equivocate all over the place. The fact that some reactionary Islamic forces have exploited the issue is used to justify the left failing to condemn the cartoons.

The fact that the cartoons attack members of a religious group has led some sections of the left to treat the question completely different to if they attacked an ethnic group. Would they also react this way if they attacked another group not based on "race" - for example asylum seekers?

Yet, to me their seems little difference in cartoons that argue ALL Arabs are terrorists and cartoons that argue ALL Muslims are terrorists.

There is simply no comparison between the Rushdie Affair, or the affair around the Sikh play BEZHTI, or the Jerry Springer Opera and these cartoons.

If cartoons were published in European tabloids stating that ALL Arabs were terrorists, I think that no one on the left would have any problem with knowing what side they were on, I think the question of these cartoons is as simple.