Michael Hardner Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 So here's the first piece of evidence that people on this thread are misrepresenting what's happening here. From the link: [The] complaint that these cartoons made life dangerous for Muslims, and ought to be banned for that reason. Nothing about being 'offended' here. At least the complaints about these things are being made honestly, so that they can be given due consideration. Not so much for many who complain about HRCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 So here's the first piece of evidence that people on this thread are misrepresenting what's happening here.From the link: Nothing about being 'offended' here. At least the complaints about these things are being made honestly, so that they can be given due consideration. Not so much for many who complain about HRCs. Instead of a Human Rights Commission, how about setting up a Common Sense Commission? We don't pubish cartoons consisting of a donkey sodomizing a gay man with the caption - "it serves you right" - Whe don't publish images of the Hilterish version of the green skinned hook nosed Jew drooling over a pile of dead babies. We don't publish images of Jesus Christ with the ears of a pig shooting heroine....oooops - well maybe we do - Lets publish everything and piss everyone off and have a huge war! Why not - seems Canadians like this glory war stuff - seeing we have been waging a quiet bloodless civil war for 30 years - why not just let it rip! Joking of course. As I mentioned - why provoke? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Many on this thread are over-reacting, and are misrepresenting what is happening here. Again, this shows that information can be dangerous and needs to be checked, examined and sometimes investigated.Not when an investigation costs the targets tens of thousands in defense costs. That makes it a definite "chill" on speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Considering no respectable news organizations bothered to print the cartoons, I doubt they're feeling any chill. According to folks I know in the industry, it wasn't because "they were scared to" it was because if you're going to publish something that's offensive, there'd better be a huge benefit, and in this case there wasn't - the OFFENSIVE cartoons in question were borderline amatuerish in their simplicity, and wouldn't have made the cut in editorial pages based on their quality. Their "satire" was shallow and simplistic. FYI: Harpers magazine published these cartoons early last year and even had an article about them - you could probably find the issue in your local library. It was the same issue that Heather (Chapters-Indigo) Reisman pulled from the shelves (and the reason why I support Amazon.ca). I believe one or two cartoons may have made either the National Post or the Globe and Mail in a story but my memory is sketchy on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Not when an investigation costs the targets tens of thousands in defense costs. That makes it a definite "chill" on speech. A little vision would be helpful. To look ahead before you leap..never leap unless sure of a perfect landing. For every action there is a price and a reaction. To invest to much time can be a mistake. Best to act quickly and precisely - with wisdom and confidence - like getting out of Afghanistan so fast that the Americans would not notice you were gone...Let them fill the void...but that's like getting a bully to buy his own drink..he could bloody your nose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Lets publish everything and piss everyone off and have a huge war! Or we could publish everything and piss everyone off so no one would feel left out. Sorry Oleg but I have a real problem with the PC police arbitrarily deciding what is acceptable. Just reflect on what it took to be PC in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. As far as I am concerned "Politically Correct" is one of the most frightening phrases in the English language. It is the Politically Incorrect who are the real guardians of our freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Or we could publish everything and piss everyone off so no one would feel left out. Sorry Oleg but I have a real problem with the PC police arbitrarily deciding what is acceptable. Just reflect on what it took to be PC in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. As far as I am concerned "Politically Correct" is one of the most frightening phrases in the English language. It is the Politically Incorrect who are the real guardians of our freedoms. Political correctness has nothing to do with politics - politics is free debate and expression - PCism is Orwelian in nature. It hampers communication and dulls the spirit - It is grey utilitarianism at it's worse. What it is in reality is a blockage and a restraint, that seperates and causes strife - a quiet contention that is a cancer. I suppose it is because of lack of talented leadership - a friend once said to me of corporations and the corporate mindset of mindlessness - that corporations only want what is mediocre. Leadership is frowned upon. The agenda of PCism is to generate dullness so as a dull and un-talented group can control - it's the classic devide and conquer routine. Corporatism is Facism eventually...and to be told - and laws enforce that say "do not talk to him - say only what I tell you to say" - is and will become a nightmare unbearable to the human spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Political correctness has nothing to do with politics - politics is free debate and expression - PCism is Orwelian in nature. It hampers communication and dulls the spirit - It is grey utilitarianism at it's worse. What it is in reality is a blockage and a restraint, that seperates and causes strife - a quiet contention that is a cancer. I suppose it is because of lack of talented leadership - a friend once said to me of corporations and the corporate mindset of mindlessness - that corporations only want what is mediocre. Leadership is frowned upon. The agenda of PCism is to generate dullness so as a dull and un-talented group can control - it's the classic devide and conquer routine. Corporatism is Facism eventually...and to be told - and laws enforce that say "do not talk to him - say only what I tell you to say" - is and will become a nightmare unbearable to the human spirit. I had a simpler definition. Letting someone else do your thinking for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 I had a simpler definition. Letting someone else do your thinking for you. That's pretty good - how about it being the outlawing of thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 That's pretty good - how about it being the outlawing of thinking. Even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Even better. Can't top "even better". What is also stressful is that even in the privacy of your own home we have wives and husbands and even children that enforce this political correctness. Which is actually incorrect..seeing I can not call a retarded person underdeveloped or stupified - I have to say - he's special..in fact superiour because I am NOT special in comparison...and if a black youth goes out and shoots his crack stealing cousin in the back - I can not use the nnnnnnnnnn word - I have to say if I was a witness - he is 6 feet tall of a thin build and was firing with his left hand and wearing black clothing - So the whole city is on the look out for the suspect..but no one knows if he is black or white - cos' the PCism has drapped a cloak of invisablity on him - so he is never caught...what's wrong with saying a big tall black man shot his cousin in the back and he ran south? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Can't top "even better". What is also stressful is that even in the privacy of your own home we have wives and husbands and even children that enforce this political correctness. Which is actually incorrect..seeing I can not call a retarded person underdeveloped or stupified - I have to say - he's special..in fact superiour because I am NOT special in comparison...and if a black youth goes out and shoots his crack stealing cousin in the back - I can not use the nnnnnnnnnn word - I have to say if I was a witness - he is 6 feet tall of a thin build and was firing with his left hand and wearing black clothing - So the whole city is on the look out for the suspect..but no one knows if he is black or white - cos' the PCism has drapped a cloak of invisablity on him - so he is never caught...what's wrong with saying a big tall black man shot his cousin in the back and he ran south? Well around here it's not quite that bad, when they are looking for a suspect, race is included in the press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Well around here it's not quite that bad, when they are looking for a suspect, race is included in the press release. Not here - race is excluded in news radio reports. Which is supposed to not embarass the black community - but everyone knows that it's a black guy. If there is a stabbing in a high rise - we usually know its a late night drunken score being settle by an East Indian for some close friend eyeing his wife. And if it's a baby being scorched to death in a bath tub - it's always a white welfare girl who goobled her monthly script of hill billy herione in one day. So it does not matter how it's reported, most can tell by the type of crime and by the area - what race it is...like if you hear that 20 million dollars has been stolen via fraud...well it's a white guy - with a very nice suit - easy to spot him running down the road..aaah good nite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted January 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 A little vision would be helpful. To look ahead before you leap..never leap unless sure of a perfect landing. Are you saying that Ezra Levant should have known there'd be a complaint to the Human Rights Commission if he published the cartoons, and therefore he shouldn't have published them? Levant: "Why would any rational publisher or editor report on sensitive subjects (read: radical Islam) if they knew they would be tagged with a no-win complaint?" http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/you-have-the...o-your-opi.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Are you saying that Ezra Levant should have known there'd be a complaint to the Human Rights Commission if he published the cartoons, and therefore he shouldn't have published them?Levant: "Why would any rational publisher or editor report on sensitive subjects (read: radical Islam) if they knew they would be tagged with a no-win complaint?" http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/you-have-the...o-your-opi.html No I am not saying that. What I am saying is Ezra Levant should question what motives his need to draw such cartoons. The personal question that should have been asked is - will good come from this publishing? It seems clear that the cartoonist has an agenda. There are choices we all make and there are sub-texts that exist in all of us - a simple question - Is it right or is it wrong? Will it heal or harm. I believe that the pubishers and Ezra don't give a damn about making the world a better place - the are fixated on their pay cheques and that's it. There is no mystery here as to what motivates the character in the play. The term "sensitive subjects" also irks me and smacks of un-rational political correctness. This was not a sensitive subject - it was a senseless subject. When dealing with radicals you keep your mouth shut. Feeding the enemy is just unwise - so don't do it - theyare nuts. Would you go to an asylm and provoke a violent crazy man? It's childish and only serves to endanger those attempting to contain the mad man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted January 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 When dealing with radicals you keep your mouth shut. Feeding the enemy is just unwise - so don't do it - theyare nuts. Would you go to an asylm and provoke a violent crazy man? It's childish and only serves to endanger those attempting to contain the mad man. A man locked up in a mental institution has been diagnosed as mentally ill using strict criteria applied by mental health professionals. No sensible person would provoke a mentally ill individual. Unfortunately, there is no mental illness known as religious fanaticism. I wish it were otherwise. Society permits religious fanatics to function, thrive and even become elected to public office. But when religious fanatics start censoring those of us who are not fanatics, and decide what the rest of us can see or hear or do, society must not condone such actions by acting upon frivolous and absurd complaints to human rights commissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 A man locked up in a mental institution has been diagnosed as mentally ill using strict criteria applied by mental health professionals. No sensible person would provoke a mentally ill individual.Unfortunately, there is no mental illness known as religious fanaticism. I wish it were otherwise. Society permits religious fanatics to function, thrive and even become elected to public office. But when religious fanatics start censoring those of us who are not fanatics, and decide what the rest of us can see or hear or do, society must not condone such actions by acting upon frivolous and absurd complaints to human rights commissions. If you have any insite into what is relgion and what is God - and are able to seperate the two. You will know who is metally ill and who is not. Religion and religious fanatics are alway deployed and motivated by those who seek power and use "fanatics" to do their bidding - the Islamic and Judiacs and Christian head of relgion are not Godly people - they usually atheistic egotists who pretend and use the "followers". Religious fanatics who censor those that are not fanatics..are actually attacking their fellow fanatics...all religion is fanatical - my premise is that religion is a human construct and God and goodness is not. Religion is politics and politics is relgion - they are both creations of society. There has neve been a seperation of church and state - those that chose to enter into delluded belief systems created by man will have problems - because these systems are flawed - where as the simplistic belief and hope in a God or in the personification of God that is human goodness - is the way to go - then the fighting will stop - this is politics and has nothing to do with God - God is not religion. If so-called religious believers want to have a contest with political believers - let them have it..The intelligent non-religious believer in God will not participate - let both of these human dellusionary approaches battle it out..maybe they will destroy each other - the secualist and the religious fanatics deserve each other! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted January 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 all religion is fanatical - my premise is that religion is a human construct and God and goodness is not. And God is not a human construct? My only knowledge of God comes from other humans. Does she communicate with you directly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 [The] complaint that these cartoons made life dangerous for Muslims, and ought to be banned for that reason. FYI: Harpers magazine published these cartoons early last year and even had an article about them - you could probably find the issue in your local library. It was the same issue that Heather (Chapters-Indigo) Reisman pulled from the shelves (and the reason why I support Amazon.ca). I believe one or two cartoons may have made either the National Post or the Globe and Mail in a story but my memory is sketchy on the matter. I'm sure these cartoons motivated lots of hardworking people to abandon their desk and their jobs and look for Muslims to attack. Puh-leeaze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) The Alberta Human Rights Commission must follow through on a complaint which it is doing. Can it legally prevent a newspaper from publishing a political cartoon? Let's talk about the law shall we. The Charter of Rights guarantees freedom of speech but does allow the courts discretion to limit it. The law today in Canada is that if a statement published publically, i.e., on the inter-net, in a newspaper, in a public display area incites violence, i.e., tells people to hurt others or actually states to hate them, then under criminal hate laws in the criminal code criminal charges could be layed against the publisher resulting in a fine and or jail time. Nothing stops anyone on an individual level from suing anyone if they feel the comments caused them physical or emotional damage. They will have to prove on a balance of probabilities the offending publication directly caused their injuries which might be impossible to prove. The Human Rights Commission was really intended to act as a tribunal for allegations of work place harassement or discrimination getting jobs or in enjoying access to public places. It was never designed to be an arbitrator of what comments are acceptable in the press and its probable if any decision from a human rights commission ever was so stupid as to try limit freedom of expression it would quickly be appealed and thrown out. I personally do not think this commission or any commission would be stupid enough to try censor what is in a newspaper and try define a standard for what is acceptable with political cartoons precisely because it is impossible to define. They will most likely decline to do anything other then make some comment to the public and Muslim associations that they would hope newspapers remain sensitive to changing community needs and interests. The particular cartoons are clearly relevant to any story as to them and the back-lash they caused. People have the right to look at these cartoons and decide on an individual basis whether they think they are offensive or not. That is the issue. If someone ran a story of an anti-semitic cartoon and showed it as part of the story, as a Jew, no I would not wet my pants. I would hope however the cartoon is not blown up, upgraded to full colour and placed on a huge spread or the front page. I hope it would be shown with moderation and simply be used as part of the story explaining how it caused discontent. In this specific case most papers could have but chose not to run the cartoons because they felt they could get the same point across simply describing them. Its a discretionary call. Some papers deliberately publish things to inflame, others to deliberately avoid inflamming. It often comes down to an editorial decision based on circulation and sales. I am sure we are all aware how the Toronto Sun likes to use its front cove to titillate or alarm with its pictures to sell papers. In this specific case Levant deliberately did what he did to test the limits of freedom of speech to make the point that censoring the cartoons is wrong. He knew what would happen. He deliberately planned this to test the law. If an editorial cartoon could be shown to increase the likelihood of a riot or violent attack, its possible someone could ask for a temporary injunction to prevent its publication until a court decides whether it should go ahead or not. One of the reasons most newspapers today don't deliberately publish things that will inflame is not because they can't but because they want to avoid the legal nuisance fees that go along with having to defend in court their right to say what they do. In this case with due respect there is no real legal issue. The fact that the Human Rights Commission is going through the motions and its mandate to at least investigate means nothing. To leap to the legal conclusion they will censor the newspaper is with due respect melodramatic at this point. First off the cartoons are already published-so even if the Commission had a brain cramp and tried to fine the newspaper or chastize it imagine how absurd the decision would read tryingt o define why its not acceptable to draw political cartoons if you think they will offend someone. Look testing the limits of freedom of speech yes its a serious issue in this day and age with politically proper people and our habit of creating a nation of victims for virtually any reason. But no, your freedom of speech will not vanish because of this belief some of you have Muslims are out to censor the press and Islamicize you. It could be that many Islams came here precisely for the freedom of speech? It could be many or the majority of Muslims are not in favour of censorship and the people making the fuss are a minority? Do any of you really know? Look I remember some ultra-orthodox Jewish guy making a big deal about the City of Mississauga having to light a Menorah during Chanbukah. Do you automatically assume I agree with him cuz I am Jewish? I mean why do we always assume all Muslims in Canada automatically favour censorship on this issue? All I am saying is while I do not doubt there are fundamentalist Muslims in this country who will make a lot of noise-that is what interest groups do, make noise-whether they actually represent anyone but themselves is another story. I think sometimes we give too much attention to these interest groups and their leaders. Sometimes I blame the same press. For example in Toronto, the press went out of there way to depict Dudley Laws as a black comunity leader and spokesman. In reality this was someone smuggling illegal immigrants into Canada and who had a cult following of 20 or so people and had a hard on for the police because of his own past criminal record for which I believe was drug pushing and pimping and then the illegal immigration stuff. The press chose to make this man a spokesperson. He wasn't elected by anyone and the presumption he had strong widespread support was as dumb as trying to depict all blacks as being the same and having the same thoughts on certain issues. Too much stereotyping going on and not enough attention paid to the actual issue which is-if a group squawks and screams over a political cartoon, well then big deal. Its part of freedom of speech and 99.99% of us know that. I personally think we should arrest any man (or woman) with a beard who yells in public or burns anything in public and send them to Greenland. That would solve a lot of the problems. I think these beards cause problems myself. Edited January 13, 2008 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higgly Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Today at 2:00 Ezra Levant is to be interrogated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for the political crime of publishing cartoons which were offensive to some members of the Calgary community. This is not a federal issue. On the other hand, it doesn't fit neatly into any forum on this website. Those who care about free speech might find this story of interest:http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...cb1&k=90175 Here are the cartoons: http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/my-visit-to-...aroo-court.html I make no apologies for violating anyone's human rights by posting the link to the cartoons. In my opinion it was shameful that most Canadian media refused to publish them. The whole problem here is that we expect others to honour our sacred cows while we piss all over theirs. Dumb idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) I don't expect anyone to Honour my "Sacred Cow", however Artists have been crapping Literally on Christ for years do you see Christians lining up to file complaints? NO, Islamist aren't in Canada to be equal, their role is to be Superior. They are winning. Edited January 13, 2008 by Moxie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) The whole problem here is that we expect others to honour our sacred cows while we piss all over theirs. Dumb idea. So we should sacrifice our freedom of speech et al to make other cultures happy? Sounds kinda dumb, too. Meanwhile, Messenger, our culture's latest grand achievment, arrives at Mercury today (13-15) for a fly-by in order to set up for an orbital insertion in 2011. Here's a picture taken on the 9th still 3 million km out. ------------------------------------------------------ So Canada has had an interest in space right from the beginning, and, in fact, started to work with NASA more than forty years ago. ---Marc Garneau Edited January 14, 2008 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 So we should sacrifice our freedom of speech et al to make other cultures happy? Sounds kinda dumb, too. Meanwhile, Messenger, our culture's latest grand achievment, arrives at Mercury today (13-15) for a fly in order to set up for an orbital insertion in 2011. Here's a picture taken on the 9th still 3 million km out. ------------------------------------------------------ So Canada has had an interest in space right from the beginning, and, in fact, started to work with NASA more than forty years ago. ---Marc Garneau Our messanger meets the messanger of the gods? Does Mohamed, messanger of Allah know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Globe Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 So you view the Danish cartoons as hate speech? They're borderline, it depends on what context they're used in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.