Channel 4 censorship

Well said JessM

There is a difference isn't there between saying "all members of our religion must obey this rule" - whether it is not having an abortion, not getting divorced, taking the name of Jesus in vain, women going out without headscarves or depicting the prophet - and saying "everyone in this secular society must obey our rule (or else)". If people live in a secular society they cannot be allowed to impose their own within-religion rules on everyone.
Same principle applies whether you are trying to ban gay marriage or ban images of the prophet. We should not encourage the tiny minority who try to bully people and organisations. There were 2 students who were suspended from a London university for wearying t shirts with one of these cartoons. The university subsequently apologised .

punishable with the death penalty

I don't know, absent. I didn't look attheentire Twitterfeed. As I understand the death threats involved telling Nawaz that the countries where blasphemy (or whatever he was supposed to be doing wrong by NOT being offended by a cartoon) is punsihable with the death threat. This includes Pakistan where he has family and visits regularly. So they were not direct death threats but amounted to as much. The threateners, in short, were being very nasty, and knew it.

He later apologised for saying fuck off but, y'know, in the heat of the moment, it does seem like an appropriate response. Of course he wasn't thinking of being polite; he was just reacting to something horrible in a natural way, as we all would, even the saints amonst us.

Surely death threats, by definition, involve worse language than straightforward swearing.

Not sure what offensive language you're talking about, petra. I understand that Nawaz told the tweeters who sent him death threats to fuck off. That seems perfectly reasonable language in the circumstances.

This is an good take on the BBC's censorship by Ophelia Benson. Same applies to C4. Well said Ophelia.

It wasn't so much the cartoon that offended, more the offensive language that went with the twitter feed.
I have to say that I find the Jesus & Mo cartoons very funny.
They got short shrift from Paddy Ashdown, though.

It would have been better for C4 not to have shown the picture at all. By censoring it they are essentially giving up impartial reporting of a news item. By not showing it at all, they would not have been doing that. Clearly a foolish editor who thinks she has to worry the whole time about what someone somewhere might, just might, take exception to. Ridiculous. She is clearly not well trained in news reporting whatever else she's competent at.

Why show the cartoon at all? Mention it on the news but don't bother with pictures, rather than censored ones. Blacking out one part just seems inflammatory.

But it's already been shown on the BBC and is all over Twitter and FB. At what point does imagined threat become self fulfilling?

How very sad.

I have a healthy fear of fundamentalism in all its forms and on whatever subject.

But what would you do if you were in charge of Channel 4 news? They have a duty of care to their staff and were between a rock and a hard place. It is all very well to stand firm if it is only you who might get hurt.

But we (or 'they') are giving way to those values, rosesarered. That's the problem.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.'

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.

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.

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.