betsy

I think that kind of article belongs in whatever publication decides to print it. Saying they can't denies them freedom of the press. But I don't think they should put penis slurpers on the front page, because I know some people are for some reason offended by that. I don't think it jeopardizes freedom of the press for them to exercise good judgement and take those peoples' delicate sensibilities into consideration. Same-same. Not in this case with the penis slurpers, I don't think it jeopardized freedom of the press for them to exercise good judgement and talk those people's sensibilities into consideration. I agree with you. But this incident is not exactly the same as the cartoons being discussed here in this forum. No one was threatening, violently protesting and demanding that it MUST NOT be published...and no one stands in what seems like morale-boosting support behind these violent protesters saying that it shouldn't be published. The circumstances and climate surrounding these two incidents are not the same.

How many of these "other soldiers" are we talking about? Do they speak for the whole army? When and where did they say anything about the shared kind of sentiments you're talking about? I have not read or seen anything on the news about this. Actually, I don't think this particular reasoning is painting a very flattering picture of our military. You're giving a mental picture (ala satirical cartoon) of a trembling soldier desperately putting a finger to his lips and hissing "Shhhh!" while he tried to be as quiet as possible in a little corner, hoping he'll go un-noticed. I think they'll appreciate more what those back home are doing....those who try to uphold our freedom...doing our own little "battles" to keep them. The responsibility of protecting and preserving our freedom does not lie solely on our soldiers' backs.

Doesn't that kind of article belong to the likes of Penthouse or gay mags? I was offended...especially when there was no warning at all that what I was about to read while having my breakfast was something about slurping penises. Who would have thought that you'd see that on the front page...never mind, anywhere in that paper alone? But I let it go. Who knows, maybe someone wrote criticising the competence of the editor for letting that slide by....but readers will decide in their own way. It's business after all. We simply did not re-new our subscription. Western Standard is a political and current events paper. They did not publish anything out of their premise. And they had the decency of warning the public what was about to come out from that particular issue.

But of course that particular kind of cartoon belong to a particular type of magazine that caters to those who wish to view those sex cartoons. Actually the National Post had sort of tested that water when an article extolling the creativity of "slurp rails" in a gay bar in Toronto in a very explicit way, appeared on the front page alongside headlines and current events. I bet this same newspaper is now among the "principled" who refuses to print...not because of noble causes....but because of guess what? PROFIT! They're afraid to anger and outrage their very liberal-minded target clientele. Gays slurping anonymously on penises was okay to describe graphically on the front page...since guess what, the "gay agenda" had been adopted and being valiantly fought for by our liberal-minded society. So there goes the profit theory. It just occurred to me actually.

If everyone thinks and decides like you, oh yes there is that grave danger! Thanks to the likes of Western Standard who have the courage to stand up to the point of risking public ire (and profit), in a very liberal-minded society. Not only are you tampering with freedom of speech/press...but with your proposal, you are also tampering with freedom of choice. No one is forcing anyone to see the printed cartoons. In fact, Western Standard had heralded printing them before the magazine even came out...thus, warning everyone what that particular issue may contain. Obviously, the stores who opted to CHOOSE not to sell them had exercised their freedom of choice, the same with readers who shunned reading the magazine. Those who wish to see them for whatever reason have the same option. But what you want is to eliminate that choice!

If the whole argument is whether the news media should be free to print such things, then I agree with you. They should be. But the topic line said the "PM is distressed." He expressed disapproval of printing it, but he isn't about to lock Ezra Levant up. Therefore, the press is still free and the debate is really about whether the press should print the cartoons. I think anybody who chooses to print them is not really concerned about the non-issue of freedom of the press (because that isn't really in jeopardy) and is more concerned with drawing offence in order to instigate a fight. No matter what the debate is really all about in this particular topic, the arguments lead to the same thing: freedom of the press! Just the fact that the press is getting unfairly whacked for printing the said cartoons is proof enough why this debate is about freedom of the press/speech!

I guess you still have not visited that "Rest of the World" forum like I asked you to.

They'll find an excuse. Even when we all unanimously bury our heads in the sand.

That is your perception. But mine is different. I can see that they were standing up for our rights. And I'm sure there are those who really just dismiss this whole shebang coming from both sides as just another looney page in history. But that's it. People have different ways of thinking...of seeing and analysing things...difference in opinions... And coming back to what you said about having a good discussion, media and editorials do promote and encourage those discussions. But the facts had to be laid out. A good media never takes it for granted that the reader already knows what's going on.

So you agree that it is OK to say or print something offensive to someone or group when ever you want but when they throw a trantrum or take action again'st you, "you call them a bully." and you would consider it a normal response to push back. Sounds like something kids do on the play ground. It's not the actions of a grown-up or for that matter a media outlet who should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us normal citizens. In this case, who did the bullying first? "Bullying" is an understatement actually when you consider what happened to Rushdie and that movie guy who was executed. And yes, the scenario does looked like children fighting in the playground. But if you look at grown-up life and child's play....not much difference really.

Perhaps you can educate me , explain to me how those cartoons are news worthy, perhaps you can explain to me what was the piont in printing them if not to provoke the muslims. Whether I think those cartoons are news-worthy or not, is not the point. The point is, you saying and declaring that these cartoons are not news-worthy, therefore they should not be published. I interpret that as you thinking and deciding for us all!

Wait a minute here...as far as I know soldiers have been dying in the middle east even before this cartoon broke out! Citizens have been taken hostage and beheaded waaaay before this cartoon scenario broke out! Let's not try to shift everything into this cartoon. In fact, I bet these media who stood had finally had it and decided to do something about it! Yeah they don't get that much pay..and the soldiers that died in other world wars did it for peanuts too...but they counted they were doing it for the freedom of this country....which now, some folks are taking for granted and slowly dismantling a little piece at a time.

And ? have you been following along here, Argus piont was that he seen it as the Media standing-up in solidarity for thiers and ours, freedom of speech, bullshit.... they did it for profit. I know what Argus' point is. It's the same as mine. But your point is that it was a business making profit...and I say, so what? If Western Standard made a point of standing up alongside European counterparts...and made a profit to boot...well, good for them! That's the beauty of free enterprise in a free country!

Actually, it is a very normal response to push back when you're being bullied.

So we don't call convicted child molesters, "perverts"...since that's an insulting title, isn't it? After all we just human and make mistakes. We don't call serial or mass murderers "monsters?"

To you it's not a news-worthy story. That's your own opinion. You have no right to judge for...or speak for us! You have no right to decide or make a "judgement call" for everyone.

So it's a business. And? Is there anything wrong with that since we're supposed to be living in a country where free enterprise is norm? What is not dollar-driven? In case you haven't read, some outlets had refused to carry the Western Standard for printing those cartoons. I wonder how many of those are from Corner or Convenience stores...seeing that a lot of these stores are owned or operated by muslims. It only shows that it's a mentality of "you do as we say or else you suffer."

Who decides about these lots of crap that "you don't need to know?" Who makes this "judgement call" for you? Liberal-leaning papers? The lefties? People in communist and oppressive regimes are told only of what "they need to know." Other information that they did not have the need to know are filtered out so they never see them. They have various reasons for filtering out these information, one of them being: they're crappy info that will pollute the minds of the citizens, may inspire them into thinking, and make them feel unhappy and restless being in this kind of controllable situation. They might revolt.

Yes, the Western Standard is free to do as it pleases......but it is still a freedom issue since the various ways of protests (from the fatwa and murder and to violent protests) are meant to intimidate people from expressing their opinion. The radicals are exploiting the issue and had successfully convinced and manipulated "peace-mongers" to turn on those who will not be intimidated....brilliantly calculating that the atmosphere of "political correctness" (which ironically muslims scoff at), will do half of the job for them. A perfect example is right here on this forum.

Don't be so quick to dismiss our ability to get hostages out. Canada's special-operations troops are the second-best trained unit in the world, bowing only to the UK's SAS. I thought Israel's got the best?

I've seen the USA included too in these protests! It makes you wonder eh?

No! On the contrary, reprinting of these cartoons and editorial comments that give well-thought out opinions and various angles offer the moderates to read and analyse things for themselves. We Christians had gotten over tougher and more blatant insults than just satirical cartoons....sure we fumed and made some protest, but we moved on. I'm sure those a lot of sensible moderate muslims would find it more insulting the way some non-muslims show their support in a patronizing way.

By escalate, you mean by showing resistance? By not readily giving up one's rights? By stubbornly digging in and not wanting to budge? I You're right. Some people's only interest is to escalate things. Just like the governments and the radical elements who fuel the fires in these protests in their bid to smother the West.

Exactly. Why do you think Europe seemed to have united and decided to go and keep re-printing? Yes, you could say it is provocation.....but don't you see, there's something more to this than just those bloody cartoons! As I've asked a couple of times before, do you remember Salomon Rushdie? He wrote a book more than a decade ago that talked of something the muslims did not like...and the mullah of Iran had put a fatwa on him. A fatwa is a death sentence, urging any muslims all over the world to kill this man. That was a blatant attack on feedom of speech, creativity, opinion, press..etc.., Then a European movie maker was killed for making a movie that a muslim found offensive! If you hadn't yet, please refer to the area World forum wherein I posted a topic called "What made Europe do it?" It has a link on related incidents. Then maybe you'll see that there is a reason behind this intentional move of the media.

Because it came from a Conservative? Who is everyone? Where are you reading/seeing this? The Liberal and NDP strategists from M Duffy! ...and CBC radio.