Readers' views: Muhammad cartoons

Publication in New Zealand of the Muhammad cartoons has brought a huge reaction from readers. Here is a selection of comments:

The furore over the Danish cartoons demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the concept of multiculturalism. Such a concept can only survive if there is mutual respect among the differing cultures.

Western society, while not perfect, has generally been one of tolerance and respect but this is sorely tested when militant Muslims threaten death to, and actually kill, non-believers.

Where is the tolerance in a creed that demands belief on pain of death? If Muslims wish their religion to be accepted by Western society then the majority, who are no doubt peaceful and law-abiding, need to root out the extremists, reclaim their religion, and be seen to do so.

Iain Powrie, Hamilton.

* * *

In the midst of international uproar over the public ridicule of the Islamic religion, Close Up chose to flaunt its disdain for Christianity with a mocking send-up of Jesus Christ. I am hurt and dismayed by this insensitivity.

Did Susan Wood and her programme advisers think that all of New Zealand would enjoy the joke?

Such is my outrage that I will be withdrawing all my financial commitments from the Public Trust, its primary sponsor.

The media does not operate from an ethic of kindness and respect, but its reward is ultimately the dollar.

Kirsty Gerlach, Rotorua.

* * *

To many millions of American Christians, President Bush is a "servant of God". They believe God has anointed him to be the head of the most powerful nation in the world and, as a "disciple of Christ and a servant of Almighty God", he seeks to perform the will of God for the United States and the world.

Yet Muslims regularly burn grotesque effigies of him, and he is often cartooned and lampooned on al-Jazeera TV and their website,

What's the difference? To the Muslim, Muhammad is also a "servant of Allah" whom they believe performed Allah's will. Yet if an ugly effigy of Muhammad was burnt publicly, all hell would be let loose.

Now because of some cartoons, maddened Muslims are terrorising Danish embassies in various capitals around the world. Muslim hypocrisy dominates the media and our world. Proclaiming to be peaceful, they threaten, vandalise and murder innocent victims and promise the destruction of Israel, or the US and any nation that disagrees with them.

TV1's Close Up attempt at being blasphemous with its internet clip of a gay Jesus trying to sing and dance unsuccessfully in front of a moving bus, says more about Susan Wood's unbridled joy at being irreligious than her "show" actually having any theological or academic interest.

Nonetheless, the skit does have a simple and thought-provoking message: "Be warned, if you want to blaspheme Christ, you are likely to be run over by a bus."

Dr Allan Anderson, Birkenhead.

* * *

Your editorial opposing republication of the cartoons that have offended Muslims was unconvincing.

Killing people in the name of any religion is far more offensive to anyone with basic humanity than publishing anything can ever be.

The fundamentalist Muslims who promote religious hatred and terrorist acts have only themselves to thank for associating their religion with evil and rightly being lampooned for that.

If other Muslims wish their religion to be treated with respect rather than contempt they have a simple recourse - dissociate it and themselves from ruthless brutality.

Fortunately your refusal to republish is a meaningless gesture. The internet now ensures freedom of speech and information.

Alan Wilkinson, Russell.

* * *

Your decision not to publish the cartoons has my full support. It does you proud. Jane Addams, US social worker, put it succinctly in her Honolulu Speech in 1933: "Civilisation is a method of living, an attitude of equal respect for all men."

S. Thompson, Mairangi Bay.

* * *

Now that I have seen the cartoons which are causing so much angst, it is obvious that they are by no means all alike.

This is not surprising in view of the fact that pictures of the prophet are apparently a no-no, and so not available to be copied.

So how do the Muslims recognise that the cartoons represent Muhammad and know that it is time for everyone to get their knickers in a knot?

Methinks they protest too much.

D. J. Rowarth, Pakuranga.

* * *

The attitude of the Dominion Post and TVNZ in publishing the cartoons is represented by, 'I can publish, I have the right to publish so I will publish regardless of the effect on others'. How arrogant, how self- righteous, how irresponsible and, predictably, how selfish.

Nonetheless, this decision to publish is simply a manifestation of the insidious me-first-second-and-always malaise that is destroying what were once, caring and thoughtful communities.

The news media have the power to influence and give leadership to these communities. They choose to exercise this power by leading us deeper into their gutter press world without ethics or a shadow of concern for anyone but themselves and their professed rights.

Roger Clarke, Pirongia.

* * *

I suspect that neither European nor New Zealand mainstream newspapers would dream of publishing cartoons belittling, for example, the Holocaust.

Why, then, publish cartoons that are deeply offensive to Muslims?

Certainly one is a factual matter and the other a religious one, but belittling either is akin to inciting racial hatred.

Yes, freedom of speech is critical, but it should be used responsibly and not merely as a tool for providing gratuitous insult.

There was no important point being made in the cartoons that I can discern, merely a desire to offend.

Seemingly we all (Christians, Muslims, and non-religious alike) still have a long way to go in learning how to co-exist peacefully with cultures that are different from our own.

Cathie Harrison, RD Nelson.

* * *

My wife and I have appreciated the Herald's stand on not mocking the strongly held beliefs of others, whether we agree with them or not.

As Christians we would not agree with the violent response of Islam to this mocking, but we understand and respect their feelings. There is an important difference between objective reporting and deliberate mocking. The first promotes reasoned debate, the second displays arrogance.

The Close Up presentation mocking Jesus was offensive. Even more hurtful was Susan Wood's laughter.

Norm and Liz Silcock, Cambridge.

* * *

The New Zealand papers which published the Muhammad cartoons have done the wrong thing. This is a sure way of inciting racial hatred. I believe that if the same had been done regarding Maori beliefs there would have been strong protests.

The publishing of the cartoons shows disrespect and a lack of understanding of Islam.

The editors claim freedom of speech. Well, freedom comes with responsibility and one's freedom stops where another's begins.

Johannes Jenje, RD Hamilton.

* * *

It is true we live in a world where respect for others' beliefs and feelings is regarded as a secondary consideration by those in the communication industry in general, but also among society as a whole.

I agree that the cartoons should not have been printed, but I also believe it is about time the Muslims started to respect our abhorrence of beheadings, killing of innocent people and threats of taking over the world.

If the attitudes of these extremists persist, then the tolerance of nations such as ours will not last, and the local Muslim society will more than likely suffer the consequences, which will be a sad day for any society.

Charles Stewart, Kamo.

* * *


Okay, the Dominion Post, the Press, TVNZ and TV3 made their point by publishing the cartoons deemed offensive by some Muslims.

But what did they achieve? Quite obviously they did not appreciate that there is no shortage of fanatic religious idiots in this world. Their decision to publish the cartoons was as idiotic as the decisions of those advocating violence against the publishers and their countries.

Zahir Mohamed, Howick.

* * *

I'm not one to cry out for new laws, but the actions of the Dominion Post and the Press in printing the caricatures of Muhammad show that we need one more: one against criminal stupidity.

Colin England, Mt Eden.

* * *

According to Kurtis Cooper, spokesman for the US State Department: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims. We fully recognise and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable."

I agree. Why did some New Zealand newspapers go out of their way to knowingly offend the religious beliefs of 1.2 billion people? The answer seems to be: because they can.

Deliberately offending anyone's religious beliefs is highly irresponsible in a civilised society. Would the New Zealand media show a photo of the severed head of a baby resulting from a motor accident? I think not, for obvious reasons.

With freedom comes responsibility. For once the US has got it right, and New Zealand has got it wrong.

Joel Schiff, Dairy Flat.

* * *

The excessive and violent reaction in much of the Muslim world over the printing of the cartoons has once again shown the fundamental nature of Islam.

It is an aggressive and belligerent religion which from its invention expanded its spheres of influence by domination and force.

History is quite clear on this. Christians have long endured ridicule and lampooning of their beliefs. But their reaction is in the main to turn the other cheek. Muslims need to learn this.

Their present reaction is naive. When a person goads someone and gets a strong reaction, it makes the teasing all the more fun. What satisfaction the media who printed these cartoons must now be getting.

The hysterical and irrational crowds (predominantly male) screaming and yelling just give the cartoons greater prominence. If they had ignored them the issue would have died in Denmark. But then modern Islam is not known for its thinking and rationality.

Russell Armitage, Hamilton.

* * *

In your piece, "NZ cartoonist says Muslims need a sense of humour", the president of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand, Javed Khan, was quoted as saying that "freedom of expression does not mean 'absolute' freedom, going as far as mocking other religions and their beliefs".

As someone who believes strongly in multiculturalism and tolerance, I am saddened by Mr Khan's words because he could not be more wrong.

That is exactly what freedom of expression means - especially freedom of the press.

David Dickinson, Grey Lynn.

* * *

The followers of that particularly sick religion, Islam, need to get over themselves, get a sense of humour, get on with their lives and stop letting themselves be held back in the dark ages.

G. Evans, Mt Eden.

* * *

I can't believe Muslims are up in arms about these cartoons. Christians are made fun of everyday and then are denigrated and put down and called all sorts of names under the sun, but do we threaten violence and murder?

No. We take it because we know God is our defender. Our politicians want to pander to everything in this country including extremist Muslims and yet when Christians stand up for themselves what do we get called? Extreme fundamentalists.

I for one applaud these newspapers for defending freedom of expression. Christians do it everyday.

R. M. Davies, Whakatane.

* * *

Rarely have I seen such cultural insensitivity as that perpetrated by the fanatics in the Middle East over the cartoons printed in a privately-owned newspaper. In burning down embassies and calling for followers to "butcher" those who insult Islam, these extremists have threatened Denmark and Norway's culture of democratic, liberal pluralism.

Furthermore, in calling for the governments of these countries to apologise, they show ignorant disregard for the processes of independent Western media.

The Government of Syria should apologise to Denmark and Norway for the barbaric and culturally offensive actions of its people.

Charles Laing, Birkenhead.