Seattle Cartoonist Molly Norris Flees Fatwa

[Kamber Parrk]

Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, of "Draw Mohammed Day" fame has been marked for death by Al Qaeda terrorist Muslim "cleric" Anwar Al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

and has gone into hiding at the advice of the FBI.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...hammedday.html

[Aleio]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I knew this whole thing was a bad idea. I can see the point that was trying to be made in that people should be able to express what they want. I wish the idea wasn't dangerous, but it's well known that this incites violence, and attempting to make a jolly day of banging the wasp's nest garners little sympathy from common sense.

I'm not surprised that she's going into witness protection now considering the threats.

I wish the idiot from my state (FL) hadn't raised his ugly mug either with his wanting to burn korans at his church. All this shit just keeps making the situation worse. There aren't enough face-palms to express it.

[nofu]

Not that I approve of the death threat (and me disapproving doesn't change a thing really) but she was practically begging for it.

[DamnDirtyApe]

Not that I approve of the death threat (and me disapproving doesn't change a thing really) but she was practically begging for it.

That's ridiculous.

When artists create art critical of Christianity and offensive to Christians, are they "begging for it" as well? This is about intimidation of free people by insane losers who can only rely on violence to get their way because their ideology is so impotent and depraved.

[TASmith]

That's actually a pretty good idea! Get into witness protection, get a new identity, new job/life, they give you cash, I think you don't pay taxes, at least for awhile. Hell yeah, I need to start drawing Mohammed. Although, leaving the house I just built would suck.

[Randis]

Laws are only good if the institutions can enforce them.

IMO, fighting for the freedom of speech is not about provoking a situation but creating the means to protect the rights of the speaker.

[DeadlyFreeze]

Right and wrong is irrelevant you know what your getting in to when you poke that bee hive, unless your completely naive.

[nofu]

That's ridiculous.

When artists create art critical of Christianity and offensive to Christians, are they "begging for it" as well? This is about intimidation of free people by insane losers who can only rely on violence to get their way because their ideology is so impotent and depraved.

The situation here is that this isn't the first time something like this has happened in recent history and it has widely been a topic of discussion, she knew what she was meddling with. It's like knowing a certain dog often bites yet you poke it with a stick.

[Randis]

The situation here is that this isn't the first time something like this has happened in recent history and it has widely been a topic of discussion, she knew what she was meddling with. It's like knowing a certain dog often bites yet you poke it with a stick.

I bet people were standing in a long line for the next cartoon after the first incident.

[Jason Rainville]

The situation here is that this isn't the first time something like this has happened in recent history and it has widely been a topic of discussion, she knew what she was meddling with. It's like knowing a certain dog often bites yet you poke it with a stick.

I'd say that the analogy is more along the lines of you trying to do something that is normally within your right (and you agree to have this thing applied to you as well) and the dog comes out of nowhere and bites you.

We're all going to have this debate again, aren't we

[DamnDirtyApe]

Right and wrong is irrelevant you know what your getting in to when you poke that bee hive, unless your completely naive.

Hey Deadly Freeze, I see you have sketches of fantasy creatures and monsters in your sketchbook section.

If told you that it is offensive to my god to see images of "demonic" creatures, and that I might have to track you down and kill you if you don't stop, would you just shrug and say "Oh well.. right and wrong doesn't matter - my rights as a free person doesn't matter, everyone knows DamnDirtyApe is a violent psychopath so I guess I better not draw anything he doesn't like."

The fact that you have no interest personally in drawing Muhammad at this time isn't really the point - if artists and other free people in the Western world let fundamentalists scare and bully them into dictating what they can, and cannot, draw on any given day then what's the point of being in a free country? What's the point of having individual liberty when anyone can come along and tell you how to express your thoughts?

The more people like you make passive excuses and justifications for being intimidated by saying things like "Well you knew what you are getting into" then you make it that much easier for them to do it again and again the next time, and eventually they will be dictating how you live your life, since the same people who are out to threaten this artist would just soon kill you for being gay, or walking in public with an unmarried man if you are a woman, or "honor killing" your girlfriend for dating you etc.

Artists need to at least show solidarity and support for this woman. Your art, your games, your movies, your books, your lifestyle, your choices - they would all eventually be next if they get their way.

[nofu]

I'd say that the analogy is more along the lines of you trying to do something that is normally within your right (and you agree to have this thing applied to you as well) and the dog comes out of nowhere and bites you.

We're all going to have this debate again, aren't we

Yeah, I'm not saying it's fair or right but I'm sure she knew shit's gonna go down.

[Derek the Usurper]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

[s.ketch]

And now everything her day stood for means nothing.

I seriously doubt the Taliban would roll up in Seattle to assassinate a cartoonist. We'd just go to war again. And martyring her would only encourage others to do what she did.

[DamnDirtyApe]

I seriously doubt the Taliban would roll up in Seattle to assassinate a cartoonist. We'd just go to war again. And martyring her would only encourage others to do what she did.

Yea that's probably what Theo van Gogh thought. He knew what he was getting into - what the hell was he thinking for daring to make a film that criticized Muslim society's treatment of women?

[s.ketch]

Yea that's probably what Theo van Gogh thought.

Then hey, kill her. You'd only be killing a person.

Going into hiding from threats kinda fulfills the goal of terrorism.

[kev ferrara]

You apologists need to get your heads on straight. To bow down before some religion or other is to be within the jurisdiction of that religion, a.k.a. ruled by that religion. The point of provocations against said religion is to demonstrate that it does not have jurisdiction over you.

Every time you say "you asked for it" you are saying "sorry, this religion has jurisdiction over you." And making it easier the next time for the religion to exert its will over people who don't want anything to do with it, and harder next time for somebody to speak out against it.

Just the same as saying to a girl dressed in sexy clothes, "you asked to be raped." In other words, you, sexy girl, are under the dominion of any horny man that comes along and I won't help you either verbally, politically, or physically to not get raped.

Apologies for fascism suck. Cowardice is contagious and it puts extra burdens, physical and political, on those who are willing to call bullshit on fascists.

[Raffix]

That's actually a pretty good idea! Get into witness protection, get a new identity, new job/life, they give you cash, I think you don't pay taxes, at least for awhile. Hell yeah, I need to start drawing Mohammed. Although, leaving the house I just built would suck.

not exactly

except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab

[Kamber Parrk]

Going into hiding from threats kinda fulfills the goal of terrorism.

I think that this is the sad point of this story.

This is a monumental declaration of capitulation and weakness from the FBI.

[nauvice]

To bow down before some religion or other is to be within the jurisdiction of that religion, a.k.a. ruled by that religion. The point of provocations against said religion is to demonstrate that it does not have jurisdiction over you.

hahahahaha Not true at all. If this is how most of you think, that is ridiculously black/white. If you want to show a religion has no jurisdiction over you, how about ignoring it completely instead of trying to find a way to offend it? Yeah, you're begging for attention by purposely drawing Mohammed. It has nothing to do with your freedom or some kind of jurisdiction, and has everything to do with you being really bored and looking for something to challenge just for the hell of it.

[nauvice]

Hey guys, I hear there's a religion that says their God's name should never be written by any sort of language symbol ever, you can only say it.

Now go prove how the people of that religious faith have no jurisdiction over you by typing that name! Nevermind you did not know about this until I told you, and nevermind that you can just completely ignore it since you don't even know the God's name or that religion. No, instead, go find out what his name is, what the religion is about, Concern yourself to something that ought to be irrelevant to your culture, and go write that damn name, go prove your freedom of speech, even though that religion does not even step on it! go go go!

Creating an anti-culture to a culture that doesn't even hold you down is the most ridiculous thing worth fighting for. Draw Muhammad day was a stupid event.

[vineris]

Sometimes you gotta poke the wasps' nest to make people ask the hard questions.

[nauvice]

That's ridiculous.

When artists create art critical of Christianity and offensive to Christians, are they "begging for it" as well? This is about intimidation of free people by insane losers who can only rely on violence to get their way because their ideology is so impotent and depraved.

Why yes, frankly they are, and its happened before. Good job insulting Muslims and trying to make Christians seem so saintly.

http://www.notbored.org/sinead.html

Doing something anti-religion is in bad taste, regardless of the religion. You're only doing it with the intent to offend. This "jurisdiction/freedom of expression" is a lame justification to your petty action. We don't tolerate hate speech, and guess what... what is "hate speech" has always been subjective. Similar to you thinking drawing Muhammed isn't hate speech, just freedom of expression, I'm sure a lot of ethnocentric people who don't care for another group of people's culture feel the exact same way about other "hate speech" expressions. Get over it.

[nauvice]

Hey Deadly Freeze, I see you have sketches of fantasy creatures and monsters in your sketchbook section.

If told you that it is offensive to my god to see images of "demonic" creatures, and that I might have to track you down and kill you if you don't stop, would you just shrug and say [...]

Irrelevant analogy. Artists didn't draw Mohammed first and Muslims claimed it to be offensive. Muslims invented Mohammed and that rule first. So its quite the opposite of your "demonic creatures" example actually. Because you going into Deadly Freeze's sketchbook to find something you're offended by, is similar to going into the Qur'an, find something you're offended by, and telling the people who believe in it, "well fuck your rule, I'm going to break it, even if it did not concern me at all, because I've decided it offends me." You are the perpetrator, not the Muslims.

[nauvice]

(last post I swear)

If I may, I'll give you a more proper example:

5 Kids in elementary school invent a game, and in this game, one of the rules is you cannot touch a tree, stay away from them.

One kid in the same playground but who isn't part of the group, overheard them and says "what a stupid rule, I'm going to stand by a tree, touch and even rip leafs off its branches right in front of that group to show them how stupid their rule is"

4 out of the 5 kids in that group pay him no mind. Its obvious that kid is attention-seeking and is rather bored with himself so they ignore his defiance. But one of them is really pissed off, turns out he is just as immature as the perpetrating kid. So he says "I will beat the crap out of you for doing this!"

All the sudden the kid who wasnt even part of the group cries to the teachers "hey this kid wants to beat me up! I have every right to touch a tree! I am completely innocent!"

Of course the teachers should notice that kid is an idiot, because noone told him he couldn't touch a tree, he was just meddling his head in a game that didn't even concern him. And the other kid who threaten to beat him up is an idiot also. The end.

Hope this clears up what this whole situation is about, to some of you.

[Elwell]

Worst fucking analogy ever.

[DamnDirtyApe]

Irrelevant analogy. Artists didn't draw Mohammed first and Muslims claimed it to be offensive. Muslims invented Mohammed and that rule first. So its quite the opposite of your "demonic creatures" example actually. Because you going into Deadly Freeze's sketchbook to find something you're offended by, is similar to going into the Qur'an, find something you're offended by, and telling the people who believe in it, "well fuck your rule, I'm going to break it, even if it did not concern me at all, because I've decided it offends me." You are the perpetrator, not the Muslims.

LOl Your argument basically centers on "Whoever comes up with the rule first" gets to dictate what is reasonable, lawful, and moral. That's stupid and you know it.

It's irrelevant in what sequential order or period in history Muslims decide that no one in the entire world can draw their god and anyone who does can be killed for it. It's laughable at face value to anyone living in a free country. I truly feel sorry for someone living in country where such idiocy is tolerated and promoted. We happen to live in a country (and so does Molly Norris in Canada) where people have inalienable civil rights that supersede ancient Muslim doctrines.

If you don't want to eat pork, or draw Muhammad - or pick any one of 1000 religious customs - then fine, don't do them. That has no bearing on me or Molly Norris or any other artist who wants to draw ANYTHING they feel like for ANY REASON they want.

You using the word "perpetrator" in this context is silly. "perpetrator" implies a crime. Depicting a religious figure - for any reason- is not a crime in America.

[Ilaekae]

Dad, I'm so glad you saw this one before i did or I'd still be typin' tomorrow morning...

[nauvice]

That has no bearing on me or Molly Norris or any other artist who wants to draw ANYTHING they feel like for ANY REASON they want.

It doesn't. Just don't be surprised if, similar to Molly Norris's case, it becomes a career suicide.

And no, my point is not Whoever comes up with the rule first. It is this, get ready (because sometimes I can be terrible at articulation)...

>>> Whomever invents a rule, henceforth, a "culture", someone else will make an anti-culture of it. <<<

Sometimes, that anti-culture always existed alongside it or that anti-culture developed because of it. Christianity, Protestantism, Hippy culture, The civil rights, Feminism, and now Gay pride, etcetera etcetera.

Those anti-cultures needed to come forth. If you read their History, there's a legitimate reason why they were invented. Those people were/are under direct totalitarian rule. So they fought for equal political rights that were directly affecting their lifestyle.

It is not similar to Finding what's going on in planet Mars, hearing of some culture you disagree with, but are not directly affected by, and deciding you're repressed by it, and therefore need to form an anti-culture fighting it.

My 3 main disagreements with this is:

1. How can you feel Righteous, as if those people did something wrong to you when really that rule is only repressing themselves

2. How can you reform a culture you're not directly under, and that is not directly repressing you.

3. The reason does not seem justifiable. Its just a drawing of Mohammed... It is not the same thing as the Protestants who attacked the malpractices of the Catholic Church. Or the Black and Women and Gay rights movements who attacked the fact that they were/are being treated as second class citizens. No instead, its just drawing Mohammed... and complaining about Freedom of speech When the Islam religion is probably less than 10% a Factor in Our Western Culture. It just doesn't seem like the Threat to our Rights as you guys seem to think it is. This "movement" is nothing like the true historical ones.

Molly Norris, or South Park, is not the next Marthin Luther, or King Jr. This whole thing will eventually die out (it has failed already) and should be marked down in history as an embarrassment.

[nauvice]

Oh and Deadlyfrieze is point on

Right and wrong is irrelevant you know what your getting in to when you poke that bee hive, unless your completely naive.

Its true. Righteous or not, irrelevant. You should know how to fight by still being "politically correct" since this is all about politics. Ripping the picture of a pope, or drawing Mohammed as an act of defiance, is not being "politically correct" and therefore, will not be supported by a lot of people. Martin Luther King Jr. was being Politically correct, while Malcolm X (before his revelation) was not, hence why the former is more credited as the father of that movement. violence is never the answer. If you care so much about what it says in the Quran, find a less violent and immature way to protest it.