Well it's one thing to have freedom of the press, but it's another to publish just for the sake of making a point as is happening in other newspapers subsequently. I also wonder what would happen if cartoons of Jesus were published in a Muslim country. Not too much I suspect.

But on a lighter note, if Mohammad is close to Allah, can't his PR image be protected by a plague or three to punish those offending infidels in Denmark directly without calling on his self-appointed agents in Lebanon (and hopefully not in another Cronulla)? Is there doubt in the power of Allah or is this all a smokescreen for something else?

Salam. Your comments may have some credibilty if there was even a semblance of indignation from the Muslim collective about all the attrocities committed in Mo's name. Not much was said about the girls who had their heads chopped off whilst walking home from school, in Indonesia, or the school kids killed in Beslan ( many shot in the back), by extremists.
But publish a cartoon of someone who had a well documented career as a thug and pedophile then all hell breaks lose.

Isnt it about time the Muslim fraternity took a good look at themselves, and the fundamentals of their religion.

http://www.wsfi.net/Documents/WHAT%20IS%20THE%20KORAN%20BY%20TOBY%20LESTER.HTM

But for some sharp edged commentary as an inoffensive cartoon this is vg
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/155672.php

Like many others, as soon as I heard all the fuss I had to take a look at the items at the heart of the issue. Carrying my free speech banner proudly aloft, I clicked the link, expecting to be able to say "huh, such over-sensitive souls", and move quickly on.

But hey, aren't they really, really poor?

This isn't humour in the generally accepted sense of the word (with the exception of the one about the virgins, which raised a definite chuckle), but gratuitous insults masquerading as cartoons.

Which, I think, puts it in a slightly different category: being offensive purely for the sake of being offensive, then crying "free speech, free speech" when your target becomes upset. As you knew they would.

Fellow Human mentioned Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, the cause of a few ructions back in the eighties and nineties - it was physically attacked when it reached the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, you will remember. It too was a gratuitous insult to a sect, and got the desired reaction (in that case, publicity).

The saintly George Pell (the man who had to tidy up the mess left by all those sex offenders that his church had for so long fostered) even tried to close the exhibition, claiming "blasphemy". He failed, though, but a couple of teenagers with a hammer succeeded.

But back to these cartoons

The objective was clearly vilification, and the reaction was the one that was expected. That's playing the man, not the ball, in my book.

Having said that, the line that Salam draws is almost as selective. If you can laugh at jokes against muslims when presented in the theatre alongside a heap of other digs and jibes on the "differentness" of folk, then you are already a little bit pregnant, as they say. The ability to move from there to being able to shrug off the bad stuff - which is basically what the christian community (eventually) did with Piss Christ, is a sign of maturity.

That one about the virgins is the only one i found somewhat funny. It was more of a crack at extremists/suicide bombers than Islam or the Prophet. However it could have been done without the image of Mohammed and kept the same punchline.

To me its a matter of being respectful. If i have a joke or something to say that i think would offend someone in the room personally, then i hold my tongue. This may not be practical for a newspaper, but at the same time it is well known that images of Mohammed are offensive to Muslims, so why be outright disrespectful? Exercising free speech? To me that's a lame excuse. Free speech needs a warning label that "use of this liberty may result in backlash". If you use free speech to criticise and attack, accept that it can be used to retalliate back at you.
Now obviously the backlash in this case is outrageous, way out of proportion and misdirected. But the insult was leveled at a large number of people, many of whom feel victimised and powerless already and feel they have no avenue of retort, so they snap back at small provocations in the only way they know how and the only way they see will have any effect, and unfortunately that is often violently.
Justified, rational? no, but it can at least be understood. It's like the kid who gets victimised by bullies at school who lashes out and attacks some other kid who makes a smartarse remark because he can't fight back the real bullies.

So what i say about free speech is yes, but exercise good judgement and show some damn respect. Know that what is published can cause an effect which can either harm society or help it. I would be utterly disgusted if someone publishes the cartoons in Australia knowing the harm it could do.

Ms Zreika wrote:

"Now tell me this, do you really think that this is really something most Muslims would find utterly hilarious? What reaction do you think Christians or Sikhs or Buddhists would have if an image published was a severe mocking of their central belief? Would they really be overwhelmed with laughter at the so called humour portrayed?

Well, this happens all the time. Is she so young that she doesn't remember the controversy that Serrano's "Piss Christ" caused in 1997 at the National Gallery. Many of us found the image offensive, but no one burned down the National Gallery because of it.

The movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" caused similar runctions, as did the Monty Python classic "The Life of Brian" which actually did not lampoon Christ himself but ridiculed the messianic movements of Roman ruled Palestine. (Blessed are the cheesemakers.., what did the Romans ever do for us??)

South Park contains many insulting cartoon images of Christ, but I don't see anyone wanting to bomb the TV station.

A common Christmas decoration in Japan is said to be Santa Claus hanging on a cross. We haven't boycotted Japanese goods yet.

In the same way that freedom of association guarantees freedom of non-association, freedom of religion guarantees freedom not only to not hold a religious faith but to be critical, indeed mocking, of another's faith. Freedom cuts both ways in Western society. If someone doesn't like that idea they have the freedom not to live in a liberal democracy, that is, the freedom to live elsewhere.

Lastly, on the central figure of Christianity: Christ himself taught Christians to 'turn the other cheek' and to allow God to take vengence. It is God who will exercise judgement on those who blaspheme. It is up to believers to counter any blaspheme with love and reasoned argument, not with violence.

Ms Salam,

If someone cannot laugh at himself(her)when he looks at his own cartoon, he must be morally very weak and insecure. The same applies to all believers of all religions. It is obvious, however, that it applies more so to the believers of Islam, as the cartoons in Denmark have shown.

Go to my blog: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com