In Afghanistan, they had strict restrictions on pictures of country music star Dolly Parton. The Taliban had a Dolly ban.
Actually, if I’m any kind of an observer of Liberal, it’s more like “Six whole posts before a ( leftist hand-stabber hand-stabbing leftist – take your pick) spouted off with a tu quoque to get a dig in at Christians. I’m astonished that y’all were able to exercise that kind of restraint.”
Not that I have any intention of putting words into Liberal’s mouth, you understand. If he wishes to deny my interpretation (and one hopes, clarify his remarks), I will happily retract it.
Originally posted by ** Spectre of Pithecanthropus**
Nah. There always will be pitiful persons who call women ‘cunts’ - showing how they think of the female population - , spinsters with the hots for some muslim guy and other assorted nutters coming out of the woodworks when telling the truth.
Thas okay.
kimstu
hehehehe, yep. Like your worrying about things in the Netherlands, huh. Your telescope across the Atlantic must be even bigger, considering your views about sexual radicalism, around here.
Thanks for the link, though. I’m sure the Dutch will be delighted with it. 
gum: *Like your worrying about things in the Netherlands, huh. Your telescope across the Atlantic must be even bigger, considering your views about sexual radicalism, around here. *
psssst gum—it may have slipped your memory since the last time we were discussing these issues, but I’m an American currently living in the Netherlands. No telescope required.
In any case, you seem to be misinterpreting my comment. I’m not suggesting that you aren’t allowed to rant about events in the UK just because you live in the Netherlands. In fact, I explicitly said in my most recent post but one:
gum: Thanks for the link [to the article on declining sexual radicalism in the Netherlands], though. I’m sure the Dutch will be delighted with it.
The Dutch have already got it, honey. Didn’t you see when you clicked on the link that the article was produced by a Dutch person named Gert Hekma on a webpage about gay and lesbian studies at the University of Amsterdam? (Full cite: Gert Hekma (ed) Past and Present of Radical Sexual Politics, Amsterdam: Mosse Foundation, 2004.)
Sheesh, what is with the reading comprehension around this thread? SoP mistakenly thinks that gum is pitting a Muslim group in the Netherlands instead of the UK, and gum mistakenly thinks that I’m criticizing her for pitting a group in the UK when she lives in the Netherlands. She also seems to think that an article on Dutch sexuality produced by a Dutch scholar in Amsterdam somehow stems from my views on the topic. C’mon everybody, get a grip and read more carefully.
gum: Nah. There always will be pitiful persons who call women ‘cunts’
By the way, what does calling women “cunts” have to do with anything in this thread?
You’ll notice I didn’t say that posters couldn’t be art, just that they weren’t about art. No-one is paying to display these images for art’s sake. They’re there to make money. They are co-opting areas of “the human experience”, in some cases art included, just to sell stuff. That isn’t anywhere near important enough in my book to require much defending from those who object to it.
FG: No-one is paying to display these images for art’s sake. They’re there to make money. They are co-opting areas of “the human experience”, in some cases art included, just to sell stuff. That isn’t anywhere near important enough in my book to require much defending from those who object to it.
ITA. A piece of commercial advertising may be a great artistic achievement in its own right, but the company that owns it would cheerfully rip it into little bitty shreds if doing so would be financially profitable for them. Commercial advertisers IMO are not entitled to use the “but it has artistic value!” defense against people who find their advertising distasteful. They ain’t in this business for the artistic value.
Which makes it all the stupider for anti-obscenity crusaders (if you’ll pardon the term) to break the law by defacing advertising posters. Since the advertiser is only in it for the money, why not just exploit that fact by boycotting the advertised product, being sure to let the company know why you’re doing so? If they lose money by it, they’ll stop doing it. Piece of cake.
Ironically, the advantage of the lawful approach is highlighted in the very article linked by the OP:
There, see?! Complain and file a petition in a law-abiding manner, and the advertisers bow to your wishes. Go around destroying property like a criminal thug, and all you get is Pitted.
(Irrelevant to the argument, but currently holding my attention, is the question of why on earth the advertiser mentioned in the cite thought it would be a good idea to call their brand of underwear Sloggi. Darling, when your underwear gets sloggi, you should change it.)
Firstly it’s ironic that the name of this organisation is MAAD.
Secondly, I agree that they have a right to complain about things they don’t like, but they don’t have the right to break the law.
Besides what’s next on their list? Burning down pubs, banning bacon, burkhas for all women, no education for females.
This is only the thin end of the wedge. When any extremeist group starts of like this freedom of speach is stiffled by cries of “it’s because of my religion”.
Lets get this straight, I don’t object to their beliefs except when:
a) They are rammed down my throat and I am expected to tollerate things that I disagree with i.e. oppression of women.
b) They affect or endanger other people outside of the religion in question.
When I lived there, I asked a Saudi librarian how all the publications were censored. He said a matawah would be standing infront of a group of Indians, Sri Lankans etc,(always non muslem) who had the publications in front of them. The Matawah(religious police) would then say…On page so and so either rip out or black out such and such. I found it facinating that they would find minute crosses or stars of David and black them out. The Librarian also said that it was personal taste of the matawah as to what parts of women were blacked out. If the legs were covered in black nylons then ok, if the elbows were shown not…stuff like that.
*::Telescope still aimed on Britain:: [Kimstu, sorry, honey. For exciting news - which you know all about, ofcourse, being in the Netherlands and all - see GD] *
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4210299.stm
A British Muslim group has criticised the new series of US drama 24, which is about to be aired on Sky One, claiming it portrays Islam unfairly.
The Muslim Council of Britain has complained to broadcasting watchdog Ofcom. It says the programme breaches editorial guidelines.
That, the posters - and the fact that a Dutch filmmaker was slaughtered, by a muslim, for his criticism of islam, makes me wonder what’s next?
The Muppet Show banned?
Kermit the Frog beheaded?
Long live freedom of speech, huh.