The Clareification Motoon

Steve at the Pub Philosopher has got hold of the infamous Crucification page which caused all the uproar a few weeks ago.

Clare motoon

Steve has also found out that the disciplinary hearing at the college has taken place, and that the guest editor in question was forced to write an apology which appeared in the next issue of Clareification. Apparently, some of the college fellows wanted him sent down.

It is not known if the editor sent a separate apology to the Islamic Centre of Cambridge, the chairman of which, Hicham Kwieder, issued the whiny-threatening press release.

However, we are pleased to note that as a direct result of the fuss kicked up by the complainers, a disrespectful cartoon which would have been seen by only a few hundred students in Cambridge will now be seen by thousands all over the world.

7 Responses to “The Clareification Motoon”

  1. Marc says:

    Shouldn’t that name below the cartoon be masked out too?

  2. Marc says:

    Thought so. ‘-)

    Now, how about this, I just got censored for (and you’re ALL going to love this) quoting the Bible!

    Some moderator elsewhere is so shit scared that I’ve broken the rules by quoting complete with citations (but no comments) just a few of the of the nasty bits from the bible and pointing out that SOME people want to teach it in schools. You know, the bits about hating gays, raping women, that sort of stuff. Funny how religious sensibilities can be so easily bent out of shape. But what’s really bizarre, this was a site specifically against pushing religion in schools!

    “Comment is free(ish)” – how true.

  3. Marc says:

    Darm. Meant to say. Clareification did get it entirely right.

    Mo wasn’t a paedophile. The age of consent (as we know it) is quite a recent idea – 200 years or less old as I recall. Before that, seems like it was a bit of a free-for-all. Paedophillia also requires diagnosis by a specialist.

    At best, Mo was (by today’s standards) a child molestor – and bizarrely, there is a difference. One does it for sexual pleasure (their own and cannot understand what they are doing is wrong) the molestor does it for control. Those priests who molest kids (boys and girls) appear to do so as some bizarre power trip. Go figure.

    For these reasons alone we should be careful when referring to Mo as a kiddy-fiddler. A violent control freak who has inspired generations of violent control freaks would perhaps be more fitting.

  4. pommygranate says:

    Well, i for one, was disappointed.

    The material in the publication was gratuitously offensive to ordinary Muslims, equating them to rapists. He didn’t single out justifiable targets like Islamists, extremists, or those commited of rape, but just ordinary Muslims.

    He is a lucky boy to still have a place at Cambridge.

  5. Marc says:

    Pommygranate, can you share the text with the rest of us? Equating ordinary folk with rapists (regardless of creed) is unacceptable: assuming that’s what he did. However, reading the press release this doesn’t seem to be the case. In fact, the release itself seems to confuse (infamously, as is increasingly normal) creed with race.

  6. kingpin says:

    Marc, click the Pub Philosopher link for the text. It doesn’t equate anyone to rapists – okay, it uses the word “rapist” during a “quiz” about the “Islamic world”… but there’s nothing wrong with the word rapist.

    Also, surely “paedophilia” is just being sexually aroused by children. It doesn’t have to be criminal.

  7. Marc says:

    Thanks Kingpin – I thought that might be more like it. Properly defined paedophillia is a sexual arousal arising from pre-pubsecents (and probably peri-pubescents, too). Tabloid paedophillia is generally sexual “assault” on anyone below the age of consent which of course varies from country to country and in the US, from state to state. The same applies to porn, of course: something that’s made the Internet a very dangerous place.

    Paedophillia has to be diagnosed by trained specialists. A man of say, 21, having “consensual” sex with a 15 year old would not be a paedophile in UK law, but actually a rapist because a girl of that age would is not considered able to give consent. The same applies if an adult’s (16+) mental age is below 16 – this is to protect vulnerable people who may suffer from mental incapacities such as Down’s Syndrome.

    Even in this purest form, a specialist told me that it’s more common than we’d like to believe. Unpleasant stuff. Makes my guts churn having daughters of my own.

    So Mo wasn’t a paedophile, by our measure he was a rapist. Perhaps that was the intention? I stick by what I said earlier though and the point is that even moderate muslims are so easily offended (by what amounts to a poorly researched joke) they are actually part of the problem.