Muslim Taxi Drivers Protest Mohammed Cartoon By Gridlocking Oslo

February 6th, 2010 | Tags: , , , ,

Translated from Swedish: Muslim taxi drivers blocked the entire Oslo

Actual Historical Photo of Mohammed

Muslim taxi drivers blocked the entire Oslo 1000 taxis were stopped in the night – in protest against the Muhammad cartoons

Notices went out last night on the taxi radio.

All drivers who opposed the Norwegian Dagbladet publication of the Muhammad cartoons would put the car between two and four at night.

At three o’clock had 1 000 Muslim taxi drivers gathered.

It was hard to get somewhere in the middle of Oslo between two and four at night.

A thousand drivers

When the Norwegian NRK was in place at three o’clock, almost 1 000 Muslim taxi drivers parked their cars inside the city center to protest against the Dagbladet printed caricatures of Muhammad.

It was last Wednesday that Dagbladet had caricatures of the Prophet on its front page, as an illustration to a text that security police had linked to the controversial cartoons on its website.

“Misuse of freedom of expression”

The publication aroused anger among the Muslim taxi drivers, who decided to show its position.

- It is the abuse of free speech, we are reacting against. We do not do anything drastic, but we want to show that we are opposed to what we hold sacred being misused, “said one of the drivers, Munir Rashad to VG Nett.

The protest was peaceful until the police confined themselves to ensure that there was a clear passage for emergency vehicles.

Thanks to Joakim for this story.

  1. Jon
    February 6th, 2010 at 14:58
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Let me get this straight, drawing a cartoon is a “misuse of freedom of expression” but gridlocking a city for several hours is not a misuse of freedom of expression?

  2. the chaplain
    February 6th, 2010 at 15:53
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Cool! A great new Mohammed pic. I’m not surprised that the Muslim cab drivers have a double standard regarding freedom of expression. Still, I’m pleased that they didn’t do something more destructive or harmful.

  3. Donald Eric Kesler
    February 6th, 2010 at 18:58
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Hello,

    I am actually okay with this form of protest. I am not saying that I agree with their point of view. I am not. The very concept of graven images is absurd to me. Nevertheless, the blocking of traffic is a peaceful expression of their position.

    “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

    Before you correct me and say this was said by Voltaire, do a little bit of research.

    Regards and Best Wishes,

    Donald Eric Kesler

  4. Lane
    February 6th, 2010 at 19:56
    Reply | Quote | #4

    I don’t see a problem. I was a peaceful protest in the middle of the night, so as to cause the least amount of disruption. Abstaining from printing images of Muhammad is not a particularly restrictive request. It doesn’t interfere with the papers ability to cover the story. They were referring to a image linked to by the security police PST’s website. They could have included the link or provided enough information to find it without printing themselves.

  5. Alex
    February 6th, 2010 at 20:20
    Reply | Quote | #5

    “Abstaining from printing images of Muhammad is not a particularly restrictive request.” In a free society, it is.

  6. Lane
    February 6th, 2010 at 21:27
    Reply | Quote | #6

    I’m not advocating censorship. I’m talking about polite abstinence. Most respectable media sources abstain from printing certain things, not because its illegal or because they are not in a free society, but because its unnecessary to convey the truth. The New York Times and the Guardian do usually feel the need to print pornography when discussing prostitution or use the n-word when discussing race relations. I don’t know what you consider a free society, but my idea of a free society doesn’t require us to do things just because we can.