Leafless

Direct link is dead---activate link- see story under Canada!

August1991 You wrote- " The idea that these cartoons provoked or started the problem is absurd. The cartoons are not an isolated incident." This basically is at the center of almost anyone's thought. This is a clash of civilizations one modern and one obsolete compared to modern democracies. Muslim radicals in effect have declared war on the world through multiple terrorist acts and allegations concerning primitive hard core beliefs. This will for certain make Muslim integration an impossibility throughout the world because of this.

A new left-wing party has sprung up in Quebec called Quebec Solidaire which will compete against Parti Quebecois. The big diference is it won't dwell on separatism but social justice. This sounds like a familiar theme in Quebec. http://www.ctv.ca/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew...0204?hub=Canada

YankAbroad You wrote- " So then assuming Canada elected an english only PM who didn't speak French, you'd be OK with Quebec leaving the country? After all, at that point, being told the country isn't officially bilingual and even being overuled on the constitution it would be pretty clear that Quebec's place in the existing federation isn't really a concern." You make it sound like it is not factual that Canada is not a bilingual country which it is not. How do you interpret Quebec is being overuled by the constitution? They were granted the use of their language and religion within their province, notice the emphasis on province. How to you interpret this as a right outside of their province notwithstanding the fact the Liberals tried hard to impose this on the country by imposing discriminatory 'official bilingualism in the federal public service" along with questionable Charter rights that have interpreted and expanded in a discriminatory manner to include the further expansion of French rights at a tremendous financial cost to Canada. Quebec as been treated well in confederation and if they feel they want to leave in the event Canada elects an English speaking PM then in my opinion they are free to do so.

YankAbroad You wrote- " I see offensive stuff published about Americans, gays, libertarians, Quakers etc. published every day." " Satire and criticism is part of living in a free society." You are correct including the Pope and our presidents and prime ministers and including ourselves from the cradle to the grave are subject to satire, criticism and worse. The problem with the Islamic religion is that it is used by Muslim radicals and possibly any moderate follower to impose their believes into areas of religious, political and legal on others often via fear tactics utilizing terrorist acts and mob violence throughout the world. It is apparent this Islamic religion is a religon that advocates violence a religion that should not be allowed to exist in a democratic society.

YankAbroad You wrote- " Just think of it this way - would you accept a PM who only spoke French? If not why should Quebecers accepts a PM who only speaks English." They must as the country is not officially bilingual. The commercial linguistic applications that make this country work are all carried out in English (except in Quebec which is only made possible by the tax payer of Canada) as well as the English language being the majority language. The BNA Act allowed Quebec certain privledges within their OWN province one of them being language. It is ludricous that Quebec thinks it is equal on a linguistic basis. True bilingualism must be propagated by Quebec to create this sort of linguistic idealism in which from a finanancial view they are extremely limited to provide the kind of inititives to do this as well as not wanting to be officially bilingual themselves. A official bilingual PM is a myth and the perception exist simply as an excuse to help ensure the PM's job is filled by a Quebecer.

You be the judge! Do you find these cartoons offensive enough to issue death threats which BTW are being delivered via FREE SPEECH. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698 Scroll half way down the page.

Betsy You wrote- " If a civil servant has to be bilingual, then a Prime Minister must be." The federal government is offically bilingual in positons that require bilingual fluency. The prime ministers linguistic status has never been defined as having to be offically billingual. It just so happened that a srtring of bilingual PM's from Quebec made this seem as a prerequisite. If bilingualism is an official prerequisite for the postion of prime minister then we should just hand the country over to Quebec and get it over. Canada is not an official bilingual country and translators are available.

tml12 You wrote- " Your link does not work ...there were Canadians fighting in Iraq along with the U.S." CTV moved it. The link made reference to 31 Canadian exchange officers in Iraq but did not say if they were exposed to any fighting. I have heard what you have said but could never verify it by way of media. Are these 31 exchange officers the troops you are referring to?? Or do you have a link elaborating on troops other than these 31 officers? What troops are you talking about?

Sparhawk You wrote- " In fact, the CRTC provides Canadians with more choices than what a strictly free market system would offer." Prove it, as this has never been allowed. What the CRTC does is makes sure whatever your subscribed to forces you to watch Canadian content (ugh) something that seems to ruin the channel up where ever you go. Why should I be forced to pay for third rate entertaiment something I don't want initially in an area that is no concern of government. You also wrote- " It is absurd to suggest that all government programs must have the support of 100% of the people. If 37% of popular vote is enough to make Harper PM- then 50% support for something like the CRTC is more than enough." You are comparing our politcal system on the same basis for support of a draconian broadcasting legislator. The CRTC is just as Liberal as the Liberals in their way of controlling the peoples entertainment agenda as the Liberals are with every aspect of dictating your private life. I often wonder with the low ratio of Blacks to Whites in Canada why are their so many Black sitcoms in Canada when you do not see this on many U.S. networks and this is not a racist remark just an observation. See what the CRTC does: http://www.wednesday-night.com/crtc.asp

tml12 You wrote- " Canada sent troops to Iraq anyway and dumped the Libs so I think we should be able to get some oil." I don't know what Canadian troops your talking about as when President Bush was looking for allies Canada rejected that request. Surely you are not making reference to the 31 Canadian exchange officers. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_030328?s_name =&no_ads

Argus You wrote- " However, I am perfectly free to say it here, as I should." Yes, it's certaintly to bad our government does not take the same view concerning limits and it's view of politcal correctness. Canada it seems has lost it's judgement in what is worth protecting under the title 'political correctness' and in turn only contributes to the downfall of it's own society. It just does not know how to get mad over being bad.

Hollus You wrote- " Ya, I never meant to imply that the Candian Content Law was brought about by a democratic process. Though I think it's been good for us." Any law that restricts free choice in a capitalistic market is reminiscent of socialistic values including oppression and for that reason I say it is detrimental to democratic concerns in what is suppose to be a free market. I resent being told forced to watch or listen to Candian productions I have no use for and is nothing more than a cheap cover up for lack of talent and is obvious Canadian productions cannot compete in many areas of the entertainment industry. You also wrote- " If Don Cherry wants to get a show like Howards he can bash all the nationalities he wants." Cherry is an entertainer and I only wish he would of told CBC 'to take your job and shove it' which he probably was thinking anyway. But with the big easy tax payer money he gets from CBC this would be hard to do under any circumstances.

Hollus You wrote- " Once this self directed prejudice was expossed, we developed the Canadian content law." I believe the Canadian content law was delivered by way of an undemocratic 'task force on the future of the Canadian music industry' the same way 'official bilingualism' was imposed on Canadians as a result from the undemocratic 'Liberal created royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.' http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pad...ubs/f-sum-e.htm BTW- We are not specifically talking about Don Cherry jokes but more specifically about Howard Stern with some Canadians ready to board the same Don Cherry against free speech train ready to attack Mr. Stern concerning horrible cultural and linguistic jokes even though Mr. Stern does not work for CBC.

Argus You wrote- " No, I think it's the fact Islam provides a guide for law and government, and that democracy is not part of that guide." Thats what I said when I said " Muslim world rejects democracy is rejected as it allows mere humans to settle problems that they believe only the Islamic politcal order can do." But Argus the real situation is that there is a watered down version of Islam all over the world and they believe in democracy or they wouldn't be in countries like Canada or other democratic countries if they believed in the same version as their Muslim brothers in Arab countries.

Spike22 You wrote- " I hope CBC makes some huge coin" But, apparently Howard Stern was not in the initial lineup when CBC signed up. I don't think CBC should be making any bucks with tax payers money as a private investment. This will probably all wind up as another Petrocan with the CBC paying some huge penality to get out of it's contract. The only one that will make money will probably be Sirius Satellite. This is really funnier than the kind of comedy Howard Stern provides.

sharkman There is already the same topic posted here under ' The Rest of the world' - Jan.30/2006, "Iraqi's cant take the heat."

fellowtraveller You wrote- " Isn't CBC a shareholder in Sirius Canada?" Why is our tax money being invested in a commercial broadcaster? Yes from what I know CBC is a shareholder in Sirius satellite a large one at 40%, with Standard Radio at 40% and Sirius itself at 20%. I think think this sort of sells out their positon as a taxpayer paid for provider of Canadian programming. Why our tax money is being invested primarily is to increase the fortunes of CBC by making it more accessible. But I agree as to what buisness is it the CBC to do what they want with tax payers money to support commercial or private buisness. This is unethical and unfair to other Canadian broadcasters and the Canadian tax payer. .

Hollus You wrote- " You wrote " Let Howard say what he wants, if you don't like it don't listen. Simple as that." This has always been my policy also. But there seems to be many programs out there that attract a fair size audience but which I and many others consider garbage. So obviously personal choice has a lot to do with what we watch or listen to. With this being said why is it certain individuals who object to programs like Mr. Stern's on the grounds of cultural or linguistic objections get the attention of CBSC or CRTC when it is all in the name of a certain brand of comedy that many people find amusing. Is CBSC or CRTC really in the position intially to ban programming that interferes with freedom of expression and free speech? For instance I have seen Canadian made films and Candian produced comedy that I find totally offensive that has been aired believe it or not on Canada's national network the CBC. Why is it CBSC and CRTC considers it perfectly legitimate to insult the intelligence of Canadians with offensive Canadian made entertainment but feels it is in the position to prevent Canadians from watching anything it considers offensive imported entertainment or for that matter even home grown as with Don Cherry and the face mask controversy. No wonder Canada is viewed as the laughing stock of the world as it seem's the only ones that can produce good, clean, high quality, un-biased programming.

Howard Stern will soon be back to town carried by Sirius satellite radio. But already some Canadians are running around like chickens with their head cut off screaming Stern will run afoul of the masters of 'doom and gloom' CBSC and CRTC regulations. But this is being dismissed by Mark Redmond, Sirius Canada president and CEO. Are we a country of cultural sissy's? Or is the definiton of 'offensive' becoming closely related to other parts of the planet where they threaten to send out terrorist over cartoons? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...b=Entertainment

Black Dog You Wrote-" And why has democracy failed to find the root in the Muslim world. Do you think the west's long standing support of dictators and murders and rejection of secular nationalism had anything to do with that? America supports democracy. But when there is no democracy dictators will do just as well. The point is not whether citizen's of all nations have a right to choose their leaders but whether their leaders , freely elected or not of any nation have a right to choose a course which runs against whatever the U.S. perceives it's interest to be at any given moment. Most countries have made a commitment to democracy and all of it's benfits.

Black Dog You wrote- " And I hope the Muslim world finds a way to curb it's religious radicalism, much as the West did as it distanced itself from religon." This is not true as Christianity is alve and well in Noth Ameria. This is what the problem is and that is the West is viewed by Muslims as a land mass containg Christians and not Muslims. To compound matters worse the the Muslim world rejects democracy is rejected as it allows mere humans to settle problems that they believe only Islamic political order to do. But what the Muslims FAIL to realize that this attitude leaves them back in the middle ages and that democracy has major benefits to Muslim society other than being forced to accept something seen as vile especially being propagated by Christian Americans.

Black Dog You wrote- " The point is, according to the beliefs of Islam, you can't depict Muhammed." This can only apply to believers in Islam as you can not punish someone who does not belive in that faith. Maybe the best remedy for this is to approach the U.N. and have them devise conditon in the human rights code to punish any one who pokes fun at the Islamic religion. You also wrote- " This much I'll agree with. Whether it's rioting, or worshipping a stain that looks vaguely like someon's dipication of the Virgin Mary, religion is pernicious influence on humankind. Pernicious is an incorrect word to describe ALL religions influence on mankind. Worshipping a cloth that depicts the image of the Virgin Mary hurts no one. The word pernicious is better applied to a religion that includes ordering terrorist attacks that obviously involve kiling by fanatical religious groups for no other reason than to enforce their believes on non- Islamic believers.

BubberMiley You wrote- " And I am Protestant according to statistics canada, but a god hating atheist according to you. I was confirmined as an anglican when I was a kid, but I haven't entered a church since---god knows when." Then this makes you a hypocrite according to me as you will not confirm the true status of your religious affilliation which is no affiliation and you are either either an agnostic or an atheist. But if you are content with being recorded and on file as a Anglican that makes you an Anglican albeit a non-practicing one.

Black Dog You wrote- " It's not just Iraq's. In Islam images of the Prophet of any kind are considered blasphemous." How do you think the Pope feels or the president of the U.S. or any other country when politcal or religious cartoons are published poking fun at their leadership or foreign policies or whatever? The point is you can not censor political feelings concerning other nations of the world concerning aspects of Islam. If Islamic beliefs are so overpowering may it's about time Muslim's should lighten as no religion in the world has the power to enforce their beliefs on the nations of the world.