-
It's not racist per se, but it is provocative. Islam forbids the depiction of Muhammad - Muslims are iconoclasts - so to simply draw the guy is an antagonistic act. I'm not saying that it's wrong, just that it was done to wind Muslims up.
The_Kindness_of_Trees-
They've slagged off every religion. Only religion encourages "thoughtcrimes" like blasphemy. Nowhere bar in religion can you get into trouble for "insulting" somebody's imagination.
Look at this guy wanting to use Irish blasphemy laws instead of guns:
http://www.thejournal.ie/dr-ali-selim-charlie-hebdo-cartoon-1870437-Jan2015/It's victim blaming by degrees to say it was an antagonistic act. That's free society, people disagree, some are douchebags in our honest opinions (ow hai internet), but the reaction to it it ALWAYS yours.
Anything that encourages violence sucks. (including the racism that will now follow)
-
its called freedom of expression - the (radical) muslims are allowed to say what they like about everything but when a publication lampoons them , they threaten with death and then carry out . the offending cartoons were shown in france but not here in uk in the press , i guess we are afraid ,and are therefor losing our freedom . there was some fleeting images from charlie hebdo on bbc last night but if you blinked you missed them . i noticed the independent covered a article on charlie hebdo january 2013 using a image cropped of the front page cartoon . the british media is afraid and thats not a good thing
JWestland
gios78
Something of a strawman argument, isn't it? And anyone who thinks that 'Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do' obviously uses a different definition of the word 'racist' to the one I use.