Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[Michael Hardner]

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.

Then ask Christians to start filing complaints.

It's possible that one day we won't need HRCs to investigate any complaints along these lines - all of the limits will have been tested and will be well known, and the dialogue will have evolved to such a level so that petty propaganda will have no effect.

But for the level of dialogue to have evolved to the point where we're not afraid to criticize groups in an open and honest method, it will require all stakeholders to come to the table in good faith, with respect for all sides.

By framing this discussion as an out-and-out battle between religions, Moxie, you have shown that we're not there yet, and therefore that an official response is required to resolve this matter.

[normanchateau]

I mean why do we always assume all Muslims in Canada automatically favour censorship on this issue?

I don't think for a moment that all Muslims in Canada feel this way any more than all Muslims in Denmark feel that way. In fact, Muslims in Denmark made it clear that they did not agree with the fundamentalist Danish Muslim who incited and inflamed the issue to begin with. Sadly, many if not most moderates are frightened to speak out against their fanatical co-religionists. You're creating a straw man by suggesting that those who deplore censorship by radical Muslims necessarily assume that all Muslims favour censorship.

[Wilber]

I don't think for a moment that all Muslims in Canada feel this way any more than all Muslims in Denmark feel that way. In fact, Muslims in Denmark made it clear that they did not agree with the fundamentalist Danish Muslim who incited and inflamed the issue to begin with. Sadly, many if not most moderates are frightened to speak out against their fanatical co-religionists. You're creating a straw man by suggesting that those who deplore censorship by radical Muslims necessarily assume that all Muslims favour censorship.

I'm sure there are many different views among Muslims but the question here is whether the radicals will get their way when it comes to imposing their censorship on our society.

[Peter F]

I'm sure there are many different views among Muslims but the question here is whether the radicals will get their way when it comes to imposing their censorship on our society.

Jeez, My not being able to view cartoons ridiculing various religious figures will soooo cramp my free speach.

Whatever shall we do.

[bush_cheney2004]

Jeez, My not being able to view cartoons ridiculing various religious figures will soooo cramp my free speach.

Whatever shall we do.

Publish them, of course! Not everyone likes cramps.

[M.Dancer]

Rowan Atkinson made an impassioned plea before a Parliamentary comittee a few years ago about comedy and religion.

“If an audience's reaction to a joke is a sharp intake of breath, then that joke has failed and will not be repeated. You rarely hear jokes about race in Britain simply because quite rightly and reasonably, they have become unacceptable, but in my opinion that is far less to do with race legislation and far more to do with a natural, organic process in the development of our society and the positive promotion of racial issues and as a result an area of comedy has simply been shut down.

“There has been talk implying that the law could be phrased in such a way that the causing of offence is not a crime but the intention to cause offence will be. What if you did not intend to cause offence with your religious joke per se but you know or could have predicted that it will cause offence to some because that is the nature of jokes?

“A joke is essentially an exaggerated truth and the truth can hurt. Should the predictability of offence being taken mean that you have committed a crime? Is it an unacceptable joke – an illegal joke – simply because some are bound to be offended by it? Surely not. The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended.

http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/article...-to-satir.shtml

[Wilber]

Jeez, My not being able to view cartoons ridiculing various religious figures will soooo cramp my free speach.

Whatever shall we do.

Yes it does because others are making the decision as to what you can see and you are letting them. The only reason you believe that they are ridiculing something is because you are letting someone else tell you so. Someone who is arrogant enough to believe that you are too stupid to figure it out for yourself. The only way you will really know is if you can judge them yourself. I'm not fond of the term "sheeple" but sometimes it fits.

[Peter F]

Yes it does because others are making the decision as to what you can see and you are letting them. The only reason you believe that they are ridiculing something is because you are letting someone else tell you so. Someone who is arrogant enough to believe that you are too stupid to figure it out for yourself. The only way you will really know is if you can judge them yourself. I'm not fond of the term "sheeple" but sometimes it fits.

So I must see the cartoons to determine if I should see the cartoons?

...already my jaw is locking up.

...and if somebody decided not to show the cartoons that would mean my free speach is being trodden upon right?

Edited January 14, 2008 by Peter F

[Wilber]

...

and if somebody decided not to show the cartoons that would mean my free speach is being trodden upon right?

Depends why they decided not to show them. In this case it was they decided that you were too stupid to figure out if they were offensive or not all by yourself. Not surprising when you consider the kind of garbage they put on tabloid TV and newspapers every day under the guise of journalism.

[Peter F]

Publish them, of course! Not everyone likes cramps.

Actually BC, I fully agree with your position as stated in an earlier post: Desensitize them - ridicule religious figures till the cows com home.

Its a good thing. Seriously, I agree with that 100%.

But this isn't about free speach. This is about 'did Levant attempt to inspire hatred or not?' Personally I think that was his intent - but that is niether here nor there at this point in the thread.

What I think is horseshit is the claim that I'm being abused because somebody can't publish the cartoons.

People in editorial positions choose not to publish all sorts of stuff. According to many on this thread whenever someone doesn't publish something - my rights have been infringed upon.

[Wilber]

People in editorial positions choose not to publish all sorts of stuff. According to many on this thread whenever someone doesn't publish something - my rights have been infringed upon.

True but this was one of the biggest news stories of the time and your media deliberately decided to keep you in the dark when it came to the reasons why. They chose to report the controversy. They denied you the right to understand why it was controversial.

[Peter F]

True but this was one of the biggest news stories of the time and your media deliberately decided to keep you in the dark when it came to the reasons why. They chose to report the controversy. They denied you the right to understand why it was controversial.

"The right to understand it was controversial"...Thats funny. I have never seen the cartoons and yet I seem to understand that many became so upset the by unviewed-by-me cartoons that they started a riot or two.

So what would I have understood If I had seen the cartoons?

[Wilber]

"The right to understand it was controversial"...Thats funny. I have never seen the cartoons and yet I seem to understand that many became so upset the by unviewed-by-me cartoons that they started a riot or two.

So what would I have understood If I had seen the cartoons?

I saw the cartoons because I looked them up on the web. After seeing them I can understand why Muslims might find them objectionable. I don't understand why a cartoon would start a riot or two other than there are people who are disposed to riot whenever something offends them or whenever someone tells them they should be offended. At the same time I also looked a bunch of anti Semitic cartoons which have appeared in mainstream Arab media and wondered why Jews weren't rioting, threatening to kill the artists and burn down embassies.

[msj]

True but this was one of the biggest news stories of the time and your media deliberately decided to keep you in the dark when it came to the reasons why. They chose to report the controversy. They denied you the right to understand why it was controversial.

If people really wanted to see the comics then they would have been aware of Heather Reisman not stocking the Harper's magazine and they would have gone out to a store that did sell the magazine and buy it.

Just like I did.

Or, they would have Googled them by now.

The media did do a pretty good job of talking about the controversy. The Harper's magazine article was very well written.

CBC radio had coverage as well which was also excellent (of course, it's not possible to show the comics over the radio).

Just because you failed to notice the coverage at the time does not mean that the media failed us in anyway.

Edited January 14, 2008 by msj

[Wilber]

If people really wanted to see the comics then they would have been aware of Heather Reisman not stocking the Harper's magazine and they would have gone out to a store that did sell the magazine and buy it.

Just like I did.

Or, they would have Googled them by now.

The media did do a pretty good job of talking about the controversy. The Harper's magazine article was very well written.

CBC radio had coverage as well which was also excellent (of course, it's not possible to show the comics over the radio).

Just because you failed to notice the coverage at the time does not mean that the media failed us in anyway.

You make my point. I didn't fail to notice the coverage, only the cartoons. Canadians had to resort to foreign media to find out what the hullabaloo was about. Doesn't say much for ours.

[jbg]

...and if somebody decided not to show the cartoons that would mean my free speach is being trodden upon right?

If tha tdecision was made as a result of fear of a lengthy, debilitating and expensive ocurt fight, yes.

[msj]

You make my point. I didn't fail to notice the coverage, only the cartoons. Canadians had to resort to foreign media to find out what the hullabaloo was about. Doesn't say much for ours.

Your point was that "they [the media] denied you [us] the right to understand why it was controversial."

One did not have to physically see the comics to have developed an understanding of the controversy.

A larger prerequisite would be the capacity for abstract thought and critical thinking which are far more in short supply than not being able to view comics.

Also, it is not relevant where the media is being sourced - anyone in Canada could have seen the comics if he/she chose to find them.

It was not difficult to do and Heather Reisman's little stunt probably added to more Canadians seeing the comics just out of curiosity.

Sure, Reisman is as bad as the big bad media for not showing the comics. But it's their right to not show us the comics and it is our responsibility to find a way to view them if we really think they are that important (which they're not).

Edited January 14, 2008 by msj

[Peter F]

If tha tdecision was made as a result of fear of a lengthy, debilitating and expensive ocurt fight, yes.

Ah. That explains why we don't see Canadian soldiers crushed under capsized vehicles.

[Wilber]

But it's their right to not show us the comics and it is our responsibility to find a way to view them if we really think they are that important (which they're not).

It also explains that as a group they are chicken shits where others are not.

[jbg]

Sure, Reisman is as bad as the big bad media for not showing the comics. But it's their right to not show us the comics and it is our responsibility to find a way to view them if we really think they are that important (which they're not).

But it was no one's right to intimidate her orgaization in such a way as to make showing the comics an economically suicidal decision.

[msj]

But it was no one's right to intimidate her orgaization in such a way as to make showing the comics an economically suicidal decision.

Was she really intimidated?

I agree with you in general but I honestly do not remember the degree of intimidation specifically against her or Chapters.

The degree is important because it means the difference between freedom of speech and coercion.

[msj]

It also explains that as a group they are chicken shits where others are not.

We agree on this completely.

[jbg]

Was she really intimidated?

I agree with you in general but I honestly do not remember the degree of intimidation specifically against her or Chapters.

The degree is important because it means the difference between freedom of speech and coercion.

The problem is that Chapters is a deep-pocketed organization (as is Macleans). From my experience entities that are capable of being mulcted with large damage awards are very careful about what may create liability. Impecunious entities tend to be far more reckless.

An example would be uninsured motorists. I am certain that they are far more accident prone than others since, if they don't have the money to pay for insurance they don't have the money to pay damages.

[Argus]

Don't publish anything that will piss off the fanatics. My dear old dead mother loved conflict - once I told her to no irritate my younger bother...quote "Mum don't put your hand into a snarling dogs mouth". Free speech has limitations..if there is the chance that saying something or publishing something that will further craze the crazies - well shut up - sometimes you have to be quiet and wise ....why stir up the hornets nest - are you nuts?

You're so brave. Canada is well-served by having people like you who are so brave in the defense of basic liberties.

[Argus]

Angus,

I believe this, and I believe this is exactly why Human Rights Commissions look into xenophobic propaganda to determine what is over the line, and what is not.

Some have put forward that only direct calls to violence should be considered hate speech, but hardly any Nazi propaganda ever went that far: it simply painted Jews as conspirators, as a threat, and as less-than-human.

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.

I think youre confusion is in reading the comments of people who believe in freedom of speech.

Something which is evidently a foreign concept to you.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Argus