A good thing today – Lars Vilks won an award.
A Swedish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a dog has made his first public appearance since attending a debate that was targeted in a gun attack in Copenhagen last month.
Lars Vilks received a prize for courage from a free press group, at a heavily secured event in the Danish parliament.
His cartoon offended many Muslims and he now lives under guard in Sweden.
Oh damn, Beeb, you were doing so well. Two whole sentences you managed before blaming Lars for being almost murdered for drawing cartoons about religion.
And I doubt that it’s even true that his cartoon “offended many Muslims”; I think it offended a few, and those few are of the type who try to kill people who “offend” against their religion.
Mr Vilks, who has been associated with the Swedish left, received the Sappho award from the right-wing Danish Free Press Society.
Receiving the prize, Mr Vilks said he had not aimed to become a symbol of freedom of speech.
“I am an artist and my artwork is probably difficult to understand. Many have tried to understand what that dog is about. But I don’t even understand it myself.
“Some believe that it is a form of blasphemy, but I say that it is what art is all about. I show my things to the world and then the world must interpret it.”
It’s not an obviously “offensive” cartoon; the dog-human hybrid is rather handsome.
The armed security around the prize-giving – as well as its location in parliament – shows how much Denmark has changed since the February attack, says the BBC’s Malcolm Brabant in Copenhagen.
Our correspondent says the show of force is something of a culture shock for what has been a peaceful and relatively secure country.
Of course; it’s horrible.
Ophelia in the OP,
I think it’s fair reportage, because I don’t see blaming; rather, the cause and its effect are noted.
@ 1 John Morales
I think Ophelia’s point is that in the first part of the sentence the cartoon in the subject (the think that acts) and Muslims are the object (the thing acted upon). ‘The cartoon offended the Muslims.’
I expect she would prefer, “Muslims claimed the cartoon was offensive”, or something like that.
I’m reasonably sure there’s not a person on Earth who has any idea what Mohammed looked like. Some will find offense even if it takes all day to make it up out of whole cloth – or even no cloth at all.
At the very very very very least the Beeb should have got the right subject and predicate: “Many Muslims took offence at his cartoons”. Even ” … were offended by/found his cartoons offensive” would be better than what they did write.
I recall mentions of Mo having red hair. A quick googling finds this list of descriptions from Hadith.
http://www.inthenameofallah.org/Muhammad%27s%20Appearance.html
Creepy looking site… but it came up first and has plenty of quotes
It’s foolish to say that cartoon isn’t obviously going to be offensive to many Muslims. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Islam knows that it will be, and it certainly seems obvious it was intended to be. The issue is whether or not that offense justifies the reaction of threatening murder — I would say it obviously does not — and whether “many” Muslims would think it does justify threatening murder. That last depends on the meaning of “many” in the sentence, and that’s no obvious. It could simply mean “a lot of people” but it sounds like it means “a majority” or “most”. I’d think that “a lot of people” would be accurate, but that “a majority” or “most” is not; this means it’s sloppy writing at best. At worst it’s both sloppy and harmful.
Well it may be foolish to say that cartoon isn’t obviously going to be offensive to many Muslims, but then that isn’t what I said. I said “I doubt that it’s even true that his cartoon “offended many Muslims”” and “It’s not an obviously “offensive” cartoon.” I think neither of those claims is foolish.
For a start, not that many Muslims will have seen it. It’s a Swedish cartoon; most of the world’s Muslims were blithely unaware of it unless/until someone drew it to their attention. Of those Muslims, not all of them will have been offended by it.
As for its not being obviously “offensive” I meant it’s not ugly, it doesn’t make the face ugly. I get that dogs are supposed to be taboo, but it’s still interesting that the face is attractive and sympathetic.
And the fact that the face is not ugly or caricatured makes me doubt the claim that “it certainly seems obvious it was intended to be.” It’s more ambiguous than that. The dog is “offensive” but the face is the opposite of offensive. It’s not at all obvious to me that he intended offense, especially not pure unalloyed offense.