Were they right to remove this graffiti?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115772 1/Award-winning-artists-anti-war-mural-scrubbe d--fear-violence.html

This makes a refreshing change, something Muslim removed in case it causes offence.

<i.Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, who has worked with police in an effort to tackle extremist behaviour in Birmingham, said he was 'concerned' by
the police's behaviour.

He said: ' The murals are expressive and show the emotion of young people about what is going on in Gaza.

'The police need to clearly demonstrate that these murals have put somebody at risk.'

Isn't showing the emotion of young people a good reason for the murals to be removed? Emotions can suddenly turn to violence, which in turn puts someone at risk.

[paraffin]

Some of these grafitti artists are very talented and this guy's mural is very eye-catching.
I can see where the Police are coming from, to be honest. The sentiments expressed are not in themselves offensive but I guess the powers-that-be can see that the mural's making a political statement and that if this one's allowed to remain where would it all end?
After all, had that been a mural in support of the likes of the BNP, there would undoubtedly have been an outcry, despite the fact that they are not an outlawed organisation.

[Gromit]

Isn't showing the emotion of young people (sic) a good reason for the murals to be removed?

No. There are several good reasons for thinking this is not a good idea, but because it portrays a youngsters emotions is not one of them.

If I hadn't noticed you posted this at 13.54 I might have concluded you had been on the loopy juice. As it is, I can only conclude you do not need the juice to be loopy.

[troutater]

Well i liked it

[JockSporran]

I find graffiti simply vandalism, not art. Even when it is well done, it's still tacky and tasteless.

[tamborine]

Yes - it inflares conflict in UK. Think the 'muslim Banksy' should take his political art to Palestine!

When the muhadijeen are removed and Israel is left in peace Gaza will freed!

[Kromovaracun]

Personally, I don't think any messages should be removed on the grounds of 'offence'. I've said this before - personal upset or offence isn't the state's problem.

I know you can say that personal upset can be conducive to violence, but then you just get into pre-emption, and pre-emption is very, very murky territory.

I do, however, think they were justified if the person who owned the property it was done on didn't want it there (as kind of implied in the article).

[anotheoldgit]

Personally, I don't think any messages should be removed on the grounds of 'offence'. I've said this before - personal upset or offence isn't the state's problem

Not sure you meant this Kromovaracun, but would it would be alright then for a few swastikas along with the words Jews out Pak**s go home daubed all over the place?

[Kromovaracun]

Not sure you meant this Kromovaracun, but would it would be alright then for a few swastikas along with the words Jews out Pak**s go home daubed all over the place?

In my view, yes.

'Offensive' or upsetting messages and viewpoints really aren't the state's problem until they start infringing on peoples' opportunities (like job discrimination, which the govt rightly cracks down on).

Bear in mind I'm not saying that there should be nothing done - I just think there's a distinction between govt problems and society problems. Racism etc are problems with society and society should deal with them. Whenever the state dabbles in society, it always gets its fingers burnt - which is why it should do so when it absolutely has to.

Naturally, upholding that distinction doesn't work all the time, but I think it's a good rule of thumb.