Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[geoffrey]

And if you found that the Cartoons were unacceptable reasons to kill people, how would this affect your view of Muslims?

What does it matter? I can make that decision with my own mind thanks. If we start censoring information so that we don't have people thinking certain ways, we're in alot more trouble.

What an absurd viewpoint.

Anyone with a computer could see the images online, that's irrelevant.

No, that's not irrelevant. There was a news story. And the cartoons are the essiential central element to it. If they aren't published, the journalist failed in their duty IMO.

As for the legality of the situation, it's a fine line, agreed. However, I'm touching on another issue which nobody seems to address. It's also perfectly legal for the media to print anti-(insert any group you wish here) articles and/or cartoons - but they don't. If they did, legal or not, people would be outraged. Agree or disagree?

I see lots of groups criticised, some religious, some racial, some other, in print and television media all the time. Your argue is weak here. I really don't think that would matter anyways.

Cartoons were the story. People need to see them to pass judgement on if they are offensive. Show the cartoons.

If you don't like being offended, I suggest a facist country made up purely of those that believe and look the same way that you do. Fortunately, that's not Canada or anywhere in the civilized western world. Media will print what they think is relevant, and no one should ever try to stop them. Too bad if someone get's offended, seriously, too bad. Go cry about it or something. That's not democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

I see lots of groups criticised, some religious, some racial, some other, in print and television media all the time.

Really ? Where/how ?

I don't see this type of criticism very often, myself.

[Argus]

I don't need to examine the cartoons. The complainant feels the cartoons expose mulsims to hatred and contempt. Wether I agree or not, or wether you agree or not is niether here nor there. He need not seek my opinion, or yours, or the Prime Ministers on the matter.

He filed a complaint on the matter - as is his right as a citizen of Canada.

Uh huhhh. The entire point of this discussion is whether or not it is reasonable to put someone through legal proceedings because of this complaint. Without any idea of the merits of the complaint you really can't make any decision in that regard. I have seen the cartoons. Having seen them, I believe this complaint has absolutely no merit. None of the cartoons are anywhere near as derogatory as the three anti-semitic cartoons printed in those Quebec newspapers someone posted. Not even in the same league. And as offensive as those were, I don't desire their authors be punished because of them. No one who believes in freedom of speech would.

[Oleg Bach]

Uh huhhh. The entire point of this discussion is whether or not it is reasonable to put someone through legal proceedings because of this complaint. Without any idea of the merits of the complaint you really can't make any decision in that regard. I have seen the cartoons. Having seen them, I believe this complaint has absolutely no merit. None of the cartoons are anywhere near as derogatory as the three anti-semitic cartoons printed in those Quebec newspapers someone posted. Not even in the same league. And as offensive as those were, I don't desire their authors be punished because of them. No one who believes in freedom of speech would.

Those that complain are trouble makers. Those that facilitate and give the complaint importance are also trouble makers. It would be best to reprimand all parties severely and get them to stop wasting our time. There is no freedom of speech - if I was free to speak I would be arrested. So...just shut up and bare the oppression like a man.

[August1991]

Really ? Where/how ?

I don't see this type of criticism very often, myself.

Three examples come to mind.

Google: "Catholic Church child abuse" or "glass ceiling" or "Quebec whiners".

It is common in Canadian society to hear the Catholic Church singled out for various sins, to blame men (of all origins) for behaving as a conspiracy and bashing Quebec is an English Canadian "national" tradition.

With more time Michael, I suppose I could think of other examples. "Pyschopathic American"?

IOW, why don't our Human Rights Commissions pursue these instances of "exposure to hatred and contempt"? In English Canada, Americans, men, the Catholic Church and Quebec are regularly singled out for abuse and exposed to hatred and contempt.

Leafless, this forum's Quebec/French language basher par excellence, should appear before Canada's (federal) human rights commission for his/her systemic hatred and contempt for Quebecers. No?

----

It is as if we have legislation making it illegal to lie (tell an untruth) and we have created State tribunals to punish people who lie. Confronted with the impressive number of cases of liars, the tribunals soon find themselves swamped (duh) with cases (or in the world of bureaucracy, "backlog management").

With all the cases, as Argus noted above, clerks perform an initial triage. If the form isn't completed properly in triplicate, a supplicant (forms and all) is sent back to the waiting room. With luck, the supplicant will view the forms as a hassle, go away and not bother the clerk anymore. One case fewer to deal with.

Even with the correct form completed properly, there are still too many cases. Now, senior clerks make choices about which cases to expedite, which cases to ignore and which cases to put into a queue for later examination.

This is government as it truly is. The senior clerk has arbitrary power.

Edited January 20, 2008 by August1991

[jefferiah]

But you're missing the point of the complaint. It's not that the prophet is ridiculed - but that Muslims are terrorists.

Are there not terrorists who are Muslims?

The bad guy in some movies is Russian. Potential human rights case.

Edited January 20, 2008 by jefferiah

[Michael Hardner]

Three examples come to mind.

Google: "Catholic Church child abuse" or "glass ceiling" or "Quebec whiners".

A1991,

Ok but this isn't quite the same thing.

You don't see criticism of Catholic people, or Quebec people, but of their organizations, governments and policies. ( Not sure what 'glass ceiling' would be.) Islam is a de-centralized religion, like some protestant religions, so there is nothing to go after except for the people.

It is common in Canadian society to hear the Catholic Church singled out for various sins, to blame men (of all origins) for behaving as a conspiracy and bashing Quebec is an English Canadian "national" tradition.

With more time Michael, I suppose I could think of other examples. "Pyschopathic American"?

I don't remember seeing that written, and criticism of "America" is, again, written as criticism of policies.

IOW, why don't our Human Rights Commissions pursue these instances of "exposure to hatred and contempt"? In English Canada, Americans, men, the Catholic Church and Quebec are regularly singled out for abuse and exposed to hatred and contempt.

Leafless, this forum's Quebec/French language basher par excellence, should appear before Canada's (federal) human rights commission for his/her systemic hatred and contempt for Quebecers. No?

I believe a web forum, as we have it here, amounts to conversation and should be exempt except in extreme circumstances.

----

It is as if we have legislation making it illegal to lie (tell an untruth) and we have created State tribunals to punish people who lie. Confronted with the impressive number of cases of liars, the tribunals soon find themselves swamped (duh) with cases (or in the world of bureaucracy, "backlog management").

With all the cases, as Argus noted above, clerks perform an initial triage. If the form isn't completed properly in triplicate, a supplicant (forms and all) is sent back to the waiting room. With luck, the supplicant will view the forms as a hassle, go away and not bother the clerk anymore. One case fewer to deal with.

Even with the correct form completed properly, there are still too many cases. Now, senior clerks make choices about which cases to expedite, which cases to ignore and which cases to put into a queue for later examination.

This is government as it truly is. The senior clerk has arbitrary power.

I don't think throwing the entire process out is an improvement.

[Peter F]

Are there not terrorists who are Muslims?

No, there are no terrorists who are Muslims. Not a single one. There cetainly are terrorists who profess to be muslims just as there are murderers and pedophiles and fraudsters who profess to be Christians.

The bad guy in some movies is Russian. Potential human rights case.

If the movie script somehow claims that the antagonist is bad because he is Russian, then yes, potential human rights case.

[DogOnPorch]

But you're missing the point of the complaint. It's not that the prophet is ridiculed - but that Muslims are terrorists.

The cartoons depict Mohammed...not Muslims in general.

----------------------------------------

It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of the Arab women are the outstanding causes for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing.

---General George S. Patton, Tunisia 1943

[Peter F]

The cartoons depict Mohammed...not Muslims in general.

Okay. So the cartoons really have nothing to do with Islam and Muslims. Too bad neither the complainant, Argus nor the AHRC share that interpretation.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Peter F

[DrGreenthumb]

this is a load of crap, anybody should be able to say whatever the hell they want to say about whoever they want to say it without that being a crime. This is about the freedom to express oneself. In a free society we cannot do without freedom of thought and expression. If people want to call Levant an asshole and a racist for printing that crap then that free expression should also be protected. The cartoons were not funny to me or entertaining in the least but I still say he has every right to print them.

[DogOnPorch]

this is a load of crap, anybody should be able to say whatever the hell they want to say about whoever they want to say it without that being a crime. This is about the freedom to express oneself. In a free society we cannot do without freedom of thought and expression. If people want to call Levant an asshole and a racist for printing that crap then that free expression should also be protected. The cartoons were not funny to me or entertaining in the least but I still say he has every right to print them.

I agree. But as you can see we aren't holding the monopoly. Some will want to pander least sensitive religious types get offended and riot. Perhaps if we feed the crocodile it will eat us last?

-------------------------------------------------------

I believe it is peace for our time...peace with honour.

---PM Nevile Chamberlain

[Rue]

A1991,

Ok but this isn't quite the same thing.

You don't see criticism of Catholic people, or Quebec people, but of their organizations, governments and policies. ( Not sure what 'glass ceiling' would be.) Islam is a de-centralized religion, like some protestant religions, so there is nothing to go after except for the people.

I don't remember seeing that written, and criticism of "America" is, again, written as criticism of policies.

I believe a web forum, as we have it here, amounts to conversation and should be exempt except in extreme circumstances.

I don't think throwing the entire process out is an improvement.

With due respect there have been many editorial cartoons portraying Jesus, the Pope, nuns, priests, choir boys.

Also with due respect, I don't think ANY religion has an inalienable right to expect its prophets can not be depicted in a free society in an editorial cartoon.

If I saw a derogatory cartoon about Moses I might bery well find it offensive as a Jew and I have seen a lot of amti-semitic cartoons in my day often used when criticizing Israeli policies, but I would prefer to explain why I feel such cartoons are offensive then simply censor them.

An editorial cartoon by its very nature will necessarily offend some because its point is to challenge views and satirize them and try get people to question something, usually a value that has been contradicted by someone's actions. Its a deliberate attempt to challenge people to see more then one view.

In this specific situation, I personally believe the problem here is that the same fundamentalist Muslims who decry this depicture of Mohammed in this cartoon are self-serving and inconsistent, i.e., they are not applying that same standard equally to other religions, just their own.

These are the same fundamentalist Muslims who remain silent and see nothing wrong with the wide spread anti-semitic, anti-buddist, anti-Hindu, anti-gay, anti-Bahai, anti-Christan and anti-Zorostrean cartooons cirulated in their societies to name just a few targets.

Look we all would hope with any editorial cartoon, sensitivity and common sense prevails and quite frankly that is why these cartoons are vented by editorial boards but people are going to get offended and in a free society we talk it out when we get offended we don't censor unless there are compelling circumstances.

So I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I agree with you that we should not negatively generalize about anyone simply because they are Muslim or Christian or Bahaii of Jew, etc., but I also do not think tolerance of others should be confused with allowing any one group to be in fact intolerant of others by being abkle to dictate its beliefs on others.

The last thing we want to do in a free society is start allowing everyone to see themselves as a victim. We are not victims. We have free choice, and we exercise that free choice through the privilege of free speech.

For me, tolerance necessarily requires an application of the same standard for all, not a selective one because if we do that then everyone will portray themselves as a victim and demand compensation and censorship of others.

In a free society Muslims or anyone else have the right to speak out and criticize such cartoons and explain their feelings.The way to get people to understand you is to talk it out.

Trying to censor what bothers you is not dealing with the problem its masking it and it doesn't resolve it, it just supresses it forcing it to be expressed in some other form. Lets deal with it out in the open.

Having tantrums and yelling and screaming and demanding people be killed as a reaction to a view you disagree with is if nothing else rude.

Again I bring it back to the issue of male hygiene and my theory that men with beards tend to scream and burn things because there faces are itchy and full of fleas and so they get angry.

I say take a shower, shave, get a good hair cut, cut your toe and finger nails, cut those ear and nose hairs, deal with the bushy eyebrows, brush your teeth, wear clothes that do not have blood stains, and then we can sit down and talk. All this spitting and screaming iis not good. It makes people swet and smell and spew fluids. Its just not conducive to tolerance.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

Ru,

With due respect there have been many editorial cartoons portraying Jesus, the Pope, nuns, priests, choir boys.

Also with due respect, I don't think ANY religion has an inalienable right to expect its prophets can not be depicted in a free society in an editorial cartoon.

If I saw a derogatory cartoon about Moses I might bery well find it offensive as a Jew and I have seen a lot of amti-semitic cartoons in my day often used when criticizing Israeli policies, but I would prefer to explain why I feel such cartoons are offensive then simply censor them.

Being offended is a by-product of these issues, not a driving reason why they are brought to our attention.

Don't you think that B'nai Brith would express an objection if anti-semitic cartoons were published ? Given that such material was used to dehumanize Jews in the past, can you not see why ?

An editorial cartoon by its very nature will necessarily offend some because its point is to challenge views and satirize them and try get people to question something, usually a value that has been contradicted by someone's actions. Its a deliberate attempt to challenge people to see more then one view.

In this specific situation, I personally believe the problem here is that the same fundamentalist Muslims who decry this depicture of Mohammed in this cartoon are self-serving and inconsistent, i.e., they are not applying that same standard equally to other religions, just their own.

These are the same fundamentalist Muslims who remain silent and see nothing wrong with the wide spread anti-semitic, anti-buddist, anti-Hindu, anti-gay, anti-Bahai, anti-Christan and anti-Zorostrean cartooons cirulated in their societies to name just a few targets.

And so ?

Look we all would hope with any editorial cartoon, sensitivity and common sense prevails and quite frankly that is why these cartoons are vented by editorial boards but people are going to get offended and in a free society we talk it out when we get offended we don't censor unless there are compelling circumstances.

So I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I agree with you that we should not negatively generalize about anyone simply because they are Muslim or Christian or Bahaii of Jew, etc., but I also do not think tolerance of others should be confused with allowing any one group to be in fact intolerant of others by being abkle to dictate its beliefs on others.

So your point is that we should allow such material to be published... because otherwise it "allows one group to be intolerant of others" ?

The last thing we want to do in a free society is start allowing everyone to see themselves as a victim. We are not victims. We have free choice, and we exercise that free choice through the privilege of free speech.

For me, tolerance necessarily requires an application of the same standard for all, not a selective one because if we do that then everyone will portray themselves as a victim and demand compensation and censorship of others.

In a free society Muslims or anyone else have the right to speak out and criticize such cartoons and explain their feelings.The way to get people to understand you is to talk it out.

Trying to censor what bothers you is not dealing with the problem its masking it and it doesn't resolve it, it just supresses it forcing it to be expressed in some other form. Lets deal with it out in the open.

Having tantrums and yelling and screaming and demanding people be killed as a reaction to a view you disagree with is if nothing else rude.

Again I bring it back to the issue of male hygiene and my theory that men with beards tend to scream and burn things because there faces are itchy and full of fleas and so they get angry.

I say take a shower, shave, get a good hair cut, cut your toe and finger nails, cut those ear and nose hairs, deal with the bushy eyebrows, brush your teeth, wear clothes that do not have blood stains, and then we can sit down and talk. All this spitting and screaming iis not good. It makes people swet and smell and spew fluids. Its just not conducive to tolerance.

You have done a good job of representing your point of view, but the fact remains that these tribunals look into published material that may expose a group to hate. This means that such material might presumably fall short of the "hate material" which explicitly advocates violence towards a group, however it might dehumanize or portray a group to be "less" than other groups.

Once and for all:

1) This has nothing to do with being offended.

2) We still have freedom of speech, and there's no reason to overstate the limits these tribunals put on expression.

In addition, these tribunals are an addition to the existing processes for dealing with hate speech, which might mitigate the need for police and court action in extreme cases, and which might contribute to greater community unity by way of arbitrating agreements in other cases.

[Argus]

A1991,

Ok but this isn't quite the same thing.

You don't see criticism of Catholic people, or Quebec people, but of their organizations, governments and policies. ( Not sure what 'glass ceiling' would be.) Islam is a de-centralized religion, like some protestant religions, so there is nothing to go after except for the people.

How is a drawing of a turban with a bomb in it more offensive than a cross immersed in a jar of urine and given the title "Piss Jesus" - and then called art?

[Argus]

1) This has nothing to do with being offended.

2) We still have freedom of speech, and there's no reason to overstate the limits these tribunals put on expression.

If we fail to challenge threats to freedom of speech we will soon wind up with none - like France.

[Michael Hardner]

How is a drawing of a turban with a bomb in it more offensive than a cross immersed in a jar of urine and given the title "Piss Jesus" - and then called art?

Argus,

I'm not saying it's more offensive or less offensive.

And whether or not it is offensive is beside the point, as I have pointed out almost a dozen times now.

[Michael Hardner]

A,

If we fail to challenge threats to freedom of speech we will soon wind up with none - like France.

I'm not sure why you picked France. I'm pretty sure I'm more likely to see racist material there than here, and I know that people spoke such things in mixed company when I lived there.

The idea, Argus, is that small "threats" (your word, not mine) to freedom of speech need to be balanced with small "threats" to personal safety. If the threats are indeed small, then a small tribunal probably is indeed the best way to engage the interested parties.

[Moxie]

So Peter and MH both of you would be comfortable mortgaging your property to pay for legal counsil if someone files a complaint against you. Can you both afford to seek legal counsil to the tune of one hundred grand? Should one of the SSS HRC Agents plant evidence on a forum and then precedes to file a complaint based on planted evidence you'd have no problem with it?? Because this issue has gone beyond the Human Rights Commission hearing valid cases, it's agents have admited to planting evidence and then filing third party complaints. Do you understand how absurb this organization has become, they are investigator, complaintant and judge and jury. Canadian's should be screaming over this issue, instead of mewling like cows about how important this organization is. What good has the HRC done for the Human Rights of Canadians?? It is being used by special interest groups, including HRC employees to punish those that offend them.

Rue and Argus your responses were a pleasure to read.

Here's a link to Ezra's blog, this issue is getting world wide attention but MSM in Canada has been mute. One has to ask why the silence??? Are they to afraid to write articles lest they offend the perpetually offended perhaps. How Peter and MH can you justify, repeatedly, this kind of Communist control over innocent Canadians?? These aren't tribunals anymore they are witch hunts against religious people and authors who write about Radical and Political Islam. When they silence your voice, and they will-- it will be to late.

Link: http://ezralevant.com/

Snippet regarding HRC investigator planting evidence on forums: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Justice Minister. One of his staff, Dean Steacy of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has admitted under oath that, as part of his job, he joined a neo-Nazi website called the "Stormfront", and posted racist remarks there. Can the Minister please explain why taxpayers' dollars are paying someone in his department to join neo-Nazi groups to spread propaganda?

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us: was this a rogue act by a single hate-monger who infiltrated the human rights commission? Or did others at the commission approve of this race-baiting strategy, too? Did the minister himself know? Or did he turn a blind eye to state-sponsored bigotry in his own department?

Mr. Speaker, it's not just Dean Steacy who spreads hate in the name of human rights, using taxpayers' money. Richard Warman does it, too. He used to work for the CHRC, but then he left to work with them, filing dozens of complaints at the CHRC about hateful words. But now it turns out that Warman himself writes many of those hateful words, including calling Senator Anne Cools a "n*gger" and a "c*nt", and then complaining about it. Will the Minister immediately intervene to stay all of Richard Warman's complaints, and launch an internal investigation to see whether the evidence he planted was done with the collusion of his old friends at the CHRC?

Mr. Speaker, given the confession of the Minister's employee, Dean Steacy, that the CHRC plants racist evidence that the CHRC then uses to investigate and convict others, and given the proof that the CHRC's most prolific complainant has planted racist, sexist remarks, will the Minister launch an independent review of all so-called "hate message" cases that the CHRC has ever conducted to see if they were all corrupted by planted evidence?

Criticism of the human rights commissions has generally come from conservatives. But isn't a government-funded campaign to spread racist remarks precisely the sort of thing that should outrage lefties, too?

It might also be the sort of question that someone should put to the far-left Canadian Jewish Congress, which awarded Warman a human rights award last year. Did they know that Warman called Canada's first Black, female Senator a c*nt and a n*gger? Now that they do know it, will they rescind their award? Or -- and this is my unhappy guess -- are they part of this whole scam?

[Michael Hardner]

Moxie,

So Peter and MH both of you would be comfortable mortgaging your property to pay for legal counsil if someone files a complaint against you. Can you both afford to seek legal counsil to the tune of one hundred grand? Should one of the SSS HRC Agents plant evidence on a forum and then precedes to file a complaint based on planted evidence you'd have no problem with it?? Because this issue has gone beyond the Human Rights Commission hearing valid cases, it's agents have admited to planting evidence and then filing third party complaints. Do you understand how absurb this organization has become, they are investigator, complaintant and judge and jury. Canadian's should be screaming over this issue, instead of mewling like cows about how important this organization is. What good has the HRC done for the Human Rights of Canadians?? It is being used by special interest groups, including HRC employees to punish those that offend them.

Of course not.

To say that this is what is happening here, though, is out of the question entirely.

Mr. Levant is asking for this process to be tested, and as such will willfully take part in it. Also, there are many opportunities for someone to settle their issues within the tribunal without incurring large costs.

The situation that you identified is/was an abuse and itself isn't a reason to discard the entire system any more than one corrupt judge would cause us to abandon the justice system.

Rue and Argus your responses were a pleasure to read.

Here's a link to Ezra's blog, this issue is getting world wide attention but MSM in Canada has been mute. One has to ask why the silence??? Are they to afraid to write articles lest they offend the perpetually offended perhaps. How Peter and MH can you justify, repeatedly, this kind of Communist control over innocent Canadians??

Why not simply read my posts above for an answer ?

If you're still concerned, then write a post yourself addressing them.

These aren't tribunals anymore they are witch hunts against religious people and authors who write about Radical and Political Islam. When they silence your voice, and they will-- it will be to late.

Link: http://ezralevant.com/

Snippet regarding HRC investigator planting evidence on forums: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Justice Minister. One of his staff, Dean Steacy of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has admitted under oath that, as part of his job, he joined a neo-Nazi website called the "Stormfront", and posted racist remarks there. Can the Minister please explain why taxpayers' dollars are paying someone in his department to join neo-Nazi groups to spread propaganda?

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us: was this a rogue act by a single hate-monger who infiltrated the human rights commission? Or did others at the commission approve of this race-baiting strategy, too? Did the minister himself know? Or did he turn a blind eye to state-sponsored bigotry in his own department?

Mr. Speaker, it's not just Dean Steacy who spreads hate in the name of human rights, using taxpayers' money. Richard Warman does it, too. He used to work for the CHRC, but then he left to work with them, filing dozens of complaints at the CHRC about hateful words. But now it turns out that Warman himself writes many of those hateful words, including calling Senator Anne Cools a "n*gger" and a "c*nt", and then complaining about it. Will the Minister immediately intervene to stay all of Richard Warman's complaints, and launch an internal investigation to see whether the evidence he planted was done with the collusion of his old friends at the CHRC?

Mr. Speaker, given the confession of the Minister's employee, Dean Steacy, that the CHRC plants racist evidence that the CHRC then uses to investigate and convict others, and given the proof that the CHRC's most prolific complainant has planted racist, sexist remarks, will the Minister launch an independent review of all so-called "hate message" cases that the CHRC has ever conducted to see if they were all corrupted by planted evidence?

Criticism of the human rights commissions has generally come from conservatives. But isn't a government-funded campaign to spread racist remarks precisely the sort of thing that should outrage lefties, too?

It might also be the sort of question that someone should put to the far-left Canadian Jewish Congress, which awarded Warman a human rights award last year. Did they know that Warman called Canada's first Black, female Senator a c*nt and a n*gger? Now that they do know it, will they rescind their award? Or -- and this is my unhappy guess -- are they part of this whole scam?

You're making far too much out of that incident.

[Peter F]

I can be charged by somebody for anything at any time. I would never be comfortable with paying millions for lawyers even if I could in some fantasy world afford it, (unless the lawyer won my case for me - then its money well spent).

Surely you're not suggesting that I should never have to defend my self in some legal setting or other? That would require that nobody ever charge me with anything - even if they're right. If somebody somewhere feels I have 'wronged' them somehow, should they not to have recourse to law? Even if I think they are not justified doing so? The legal system in this or anyother land, is not all about ME ME ME or Moxie Moxie Moxie.

Human Rights Commissions have real legal powers. They've had them for some thirty odd years now. Thier powers are given to them by our elected governments through various acts of parliament/Legistlatures. There has been ample opportunityin the past, and will be ample opportunity in the future, for the public-at-large to push governments to have them dismantled. That hasn't happened for the very good reason that they serve a very useful service. They give force to Acts of government. They provide a means for disputes to be resolved. And they resolve many many disputes. Not a small thing in a free society where too many think we can do whatever we want to each other because we're free...

As for them being communistic...you make that sound like a bad thing.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Peter F

[bush_cheney2004]

...As for them being communistic...you make that sound like a bad thing.

You mean the commies had Human Rights Commissions too? Amazing!

[jefferiah]

As for them being communistic...you make that sound like a bad thing.

Yeah, its a great thing. That's why all those parents in Florida are putting their kids on rafts so they can get to Cuba.

Edited January 21, 2008 by jefferiah

[PoliAgno]

I wouldnt say it was a great thing....

[Argus]

Argus,

I'm not saying it's more offensive or less offensive.

And whether or not it is offensive is beside the point, as I have pointed out almost a dozen times now.

The point is the idea that this so-called artist could be taken to some kind of poxie human rights commission because it could lead to hatred of Christians is patently absurd.

So why isn't taking someone to court over cartoons of Muhammad patently absurd?