Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[Argus]

The whole problem here is that we expect others to honour our sacred cows while we piss all over theirs. Dumb idea.

If freedom of speech is not one of your sacred cows I wish you would go live elsewhere.

[Argus]

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

Whatever shall we do.

Because if you actually saw the cartoons you would know that they do not ridicule religious figures. Since you never saw them, you feel free to bray like an ass over a subject you appear to be almost entirely ignorant about. But then, braying like an ass doesn't appear to bother you.

[Argus]

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.

Reisman's organization is too big to be that easily intimidated. Nor would it have cost them. In fact, I'm sure there are others, like myself, who no longer deal with her organization due to their cowardise, so not showing the cartoons has cost her as well.

[Black Dog]

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.

I for one oppose this primarily on free speech grounds, but also on the grounds that this is the kind of thing piss ants like Levant thrive on. Honestly, the best punishment for Levant's intellectual crimes against humanity is to leave him to wallow in obscurity, forced to get a real job.

[Michael Hardner]

Also, this sentence misrepresents the complaint:

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.

The offensiveness isn't the problem here, it's creating a climate of hatred against a group that is the problem.

[Rue]

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.

Wilber you raise a very legitimate issue and that is the issue of the double standard by which the very same fundamentalists who try to claim they speak on behalf of the entire Islamic population in Canada and tell them what they should find offensive remain curiously silent when their own people in the very name of the same religion they claim is now offended, engage in the very acts they criticize others for.

If there is one thing I have found its that people who claim they are religious and offended are themselves religiously offensive not to mention they have bad hair-cuts and hygiene issues (I thought I would throw that in).

Great point.

[Black Dog]

The offensiveness isn't the problem here, it's creating a climate of hatred against a group that is the problem.

How does publishing cartons that are completely meaningless from a non-Muslim context create a climate of hatred?

[Michael Hardner]

How does publishing cartons that are completely meaningless from a non-Muslim context create a climate of hatred?

I don't know how you can say that those cartoons are meaningless. Of course, they had meaning. They basically said "this religion is about violence, period". Even if you disagree with censorship, you have to agree that certain images have meaning and that this is one of them.

[Black Dog]

I don't know how you can say that those cartoons are meaningless. Of course, they had meaning. They basically said "this religion is about violence, period". Even if you disagree with censorship, you have to agree that certain images have meaning and that this is one of them.

That's but one interpretation of many. I'd say the few cartoons that actually addressed the issue of violence in an Islamic context can't be taken as a blanket judgment of Islam, so much as aspects thereof. A society that bans or restricts the dissemination of provocative material based on potential interpretations isn't a free society.

Now stop making me stick up for Ezra Levant. I'm begging you.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

That's but one interpretation of many. I'd say the few cartoons that actually addressed the issue of violence in an Islamic context can't be taken as a blanket judgment of Islam, so much as aspects thereof. A society that bans or restricts the dissemination of provocative material based on potential interpretations isn't a free society.

Now stop making me stick up for Ezra Levant. I'm begging you.

Not 'potential interpretations' but 'likely interpretations'. A Swastika is just an ancient symbol, but it does mean something. Drawing a circle on a school wall doesn't mean the same thing.

[Black Dog]

Not 'potential interpretations' but 'likely interpretations'. A Swastika is just an ancient symbol, but it does mean something. Drawing a circle on a school wall doesn't mean the same thing.

I think you're really just highlighting the absurdity of this case here. First, you have to prove that the likely interpretation of the cartoons is "this religion is about violence, period." The subjectivity involved makes this a mighty tall order: whose to say your reading is more likely than mine? And if that weren't enough, you then have to prove the particular interpretation you say is likely is also sufficient to create "a climate of hatred against a group." I'd be interested to hear how one could quantify that. It's sheer madness.

[jbg]

Reisman's organization is too big to be that easily intimidated. Nor would it have cost them. In fact, I'm sure there are others, like myself, who no longer deal with her organization due to their cowardise, so not showing the cartoons has cost her as well.

As a lawyer, I don't agree with you. If I represented Chapters (which I don't obviously) I'd have to advise them that a stand on "free speech" principle could cost lots of principal. The word "principle" has two spellings.

[jbg]

Also, this sentence misrepresents the complaint:

The offensiveness isn't the problem here, it's creating a climate of hatred against a group that is the problem.

The "group" created the problem itself. 911, the Toronto 19, the London Subway attack, and then rubbing the West's nose in it through loud prayer calls in Windsor. The list goes on.

Not 'potential interpretations' but 'likely interpretations'. A Swastika is just an ancient symbol, but it does mean something. Drawing a circle on a school wall doesn't mean the same thing.

I haven't filed an HRC complaint against the town of Swastika, Ontario (link) for its name. Or against Temple Emanuel (link) or Temple Beth El in Utica, one of which has swastikas in the tiling of its lobbies.

[Wilber]

Not 'potential interpretations' but 'likely interpretations'. A Swastika is just an ancient symbol, but it does mean something. Drawing a circle on a school wall doesn't mean the same thing.

Swastikas and such

The Danish cartoons were pretty tame compared to this kind of stuff. I even got a chuckle out of the "Stop Stop we're all out of virgins" one. Got to be a MCP of the highest order to come up with the idea of rewarding mass murder with virgins but I digress.

I would hope that the majority of Muslims would say no if you asked them if they approved of their religion being used to justify the murder of innocent people. If so I would ask, then who are these people rioting and making death threats toward someone who is objecting?

If the cartoons had just resulted in the usual angry letters to the editor, outraged editorials, incensed calls to radio talk shows and bunches of talking heads on TV beating the subject to death that are the normal way of doing things in civilized countries, it is unlikely that most of us would have ever heard of the things. Instead we have wide spread rioting, property damage and death threats. For that reason alone they should have been published. The object was intimidation and it worked.

The message is clear, cause enough mayhem and eventually the only people who will be criticized and offended are those who as Atkinson said, believe "The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended".

[Michael Hardner]

BD,

I think you're really just highlighting the absurdity of this case here. First, you have to prove that the likely interpretation of the cartoons is "this religion is about violence, period." The subjectivity involved makes this a mighty tall order: whose to say your reading is more likely than mine? And if that weren't enough, you then have to prove the particular interpretation you say is likely is also sufficient to create "a climate of hatred against a group." I'd be interested to hear how one could quantify that. It's sheer madness.

No, you skipped a step. First of all, they don't have to prove anything, they just pass judgement. They only have to decide that it warrants further investigation or not, as in 'did it violate groups' rights ?' by creating a climate of hate.

Lots of Nazi propaganda didn't advocate violence directly, so you have to decide whether you want to allow hate literature to proliferate without any intervention, until it gets to the point where people are advocating violence - in which case it will be too late.

If you decide that you want somebody to look into these things, then you end up with commissions like this.

[Michael Hardner]

The "group" created the problem itself. 911, the Toronto 19, the London Subway attack, and then rubbing the West's nose in it through loud prayer calls in Windsor. The list goes on.

jbg - You are evidence as to why these things are needed, as evidenced by your statement here. There's no reason to brand the group based on criminal actions of a few.

[Michael Hardner]

W,

The message is clear, cause enough mayhem and eventually the only people who will be criticized and offended are those who as Atkinson said, believe "The right to offend is more important than the right not to be offended".

Again, 'being offended' doesn't have anything to do with it, which leads me to wonder why you avoid talking about the real facts.

Do you not think that your argument is strong enough ?

[Moxie]

The only hatred that is being riled up is the Hatred hurled at Ezra from Muslims, sites popping up all over face book calling him Jew Pig and other nasty stuff. Those of us who are offended to the max by the SS HRC are calming discussing the injustice of a state run organization that can persecute someone for hurting another's feelings.

Simply the hatred hasn't come from the cartoons but the actions of Muslims, they are the ones hurling anger and hatred at those they can't silence. The cartoons aren't the problem, and never will be, it's the Expectations of Political Islamists that they can dictate their religious beliefs onto all Canadians or punish us if we resist. Since September 11 the west has bent over backwards not to offend Muslims and for this we have allowed the Political Islamist dictate what they deem as ACCEPTABLE.

If they win this case it's a win for Sharia Law, and the leftards.

One of the complaintants Soharwardy wrote in hand written complaint that he was a direct decendant of the Prophet he further blathered on that Ezra had insulted the Prophet so now the HRC is hearing heresay complaints from dead people. Jesus take the wheel the leftards are getting more insane by the day. Insulting dead people is a human rights violation now in Canada. Where's the koolaide???

[Peter F]

Argus (jan15 11:14)

Because if you actually saw the cartoons you would know that they do not ridicule religious figures

So it seems nobody saw the cartoons. If they had, they wouldn't have been upset.

And here I thought the cartoons had been published somewhere....

[Black Dog]

No, you skipped a step. First of all, they don't have to prove anything, they just pass judgement.

And how worthwhile is a judgment based on zero proof? The absurdity just grows and grows....

They only have to decide that it warrants further investigation or not, as in 'did it violate groups' rights ?' by creating a climate of hate.

And on what basis is that decision made if not quantifiable evidence?

Lots of Nazi propaganda didn't advocate violence directly, so you have to decide whether you want to allow hate literature to proliferate without any intervention, until it gets to the point where people are advocating violence - in which case it will be too late.

We're not talking about advocating violence here, though. We're talking about an altogether more slippery construct: "creating a climate of hate". Now, I think, like pornography, it's easy to recognize these things when you see them. The hate element of Nazi propaganda (at the time and in its latter day incarnations-see Keegstra, James) isn't really something that can be said to be subjective. It's explicit, no interpretation necessary. The cartoons? Not even close by any standard.

If you decide that you want somebody to look into these things, then you end up with commissions like this.

Well that's the problem. It's one thing to have a body to investigate discriminatory practices in the real world. Quite another when we're talking about the realm of thoughts and ideas. That's a bit chilling, IMO.

One last thing: the marketplace of ideas spoke loudly and clearly when it came to the Western Standard: despite Levant's grandstanding in publishing the cartoons long after they were widely disseminated, it's tits up.

[DogOnPorch]

Peter F.: So it seems nobody saw the cartoons. If they had, they wouldn't have been upset.

And here I thought the cartoons had been published somewhere....

Keep in mind that the worst of these cartoons were total fakes constructed by the Imam involved. Not drawn by Danish artists/cartoonists.

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

If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'

---John Wayne

[Michael Hardner]

BD

And how worthwhile is a judgment based on zero proof? The absurdity just grows and grows....

The judgement is based on proof, but it itself isn't proof.

And on what basis is that decision made if not quantifiable evidence?

Their assessment of the material, along with any arguments that are made by the plaintiff or by the person who published the material.

We're not talking about advocating violence here, though. We're talking about an altogether more slippery construct: "creating a climate of hate".

That's what I said !

The propaganda that dehumanized people in pre-WW2 Germany DIDN'T call for violence.

Now, I think, like pornography, it's easy to recognize these things when you see them. The hate element of Nazi propaganda (at the time and in its latter day incarnations-see Keegstra, James) isn't really something that can be said to be subjective. It's explicit, no interpretation necessary. The cartoons? Not even close by any standard.

So what ? Somebody still has to make a call on that. They could/should refuse to hear the case, or throw it out right away if there's no merit to it.

I think that Mr. Levant wants the entire process to move forward so that he can appeal to the supreme court to scrap this tribunals.

Well that's the problem. It's one thing to have a body to investigate discriminatory practices in the real world. Quite another when we're talking about the realm of thoughts and ideas. That's a bit chilling, IMO.

One last thing: the marketplace of ideas spoke loudly and clearly when it came to the Western Standard: despite Levant's grandstanding in publishing the cartoons long after they were widely disseminated, it's tits up.

If it's "chilling" then maybe a trailblazer like Mr. Levant can set the precedent so others can feel free to criticize in a similar fashion.

None of this speaks to the idea that these tribunals shouldn't exist, only that they should be careful as to what they act on.

[jbg]

The judgement is based on proof, but it itself isn't proof.

But in Canada, a proof is a proof is a proof, no?

[Black Dog]

MH:

None of this speaks to the idea that these tribunals shouldn't exist, only that they should be careful as to what they act on.

That's pretty much my point. I think adjudicating matters of speech should be outside the bailiwick of these tribunals.

[FTA Lawyer]

I for one oppose this primarily on free speech grounds, but also on the grounds that this is the kind of thing piss ants like Levant thrive on. Honestly, the best punishment for Levant's intellectual crimes against humanity is to leave him to wallow in obscurity, forced to get a real job.

Black Dog has this one nailed perfectly...

I am very much a defender of free speech, so, I accept Levant's right to publish things that piss people off and at times make one wonder how idiotic he can be. That said, the propaganda he seems to be pushing on this issue is outrageous...and really just dumb. The biggest regret I have is that I had to give his website a "hit" in order to look into this thread.

I mean, people file misguided applications all of the time...some to Human Rights, some to court, some to other places / people. If this guy is so radical and so wrong in his filing, then one would expect a lawyer to respond with a statement that the application is improper and not in the jurisdiction of the tribunal...maybe even cite some law that backs that position.

Instead, Levant openly calls the tribunal "kangaroo court", mocks the applicant for submitting his complaint in handwriting (wtf difference does this make?) and spouts off about George Orwell and the end of democracy while conjuring up images of a gestapo-type "state interrogation".

I mean, really, if you push the limits of free speech, you cannot possibly think that you won't eventually offend someone and have complaints filed against you. You may ultimately be right in your position, and it may ultimately cost you money to prove that. But how is it that our concept of freedom and democracy is fostered if we have a situation where someone should be afraid to even file a complaint because they will be personally attacked and ridiculed, along with the very institution to which they complain?

If someone reports me to the Law Society for something I feel is frivolous, I will respond that I think the complaint has no merit. I will not attack the Law Society's integrity for accepting and then looking into the complaint. Nor will I make fun of the person who complained for not using a typewriter.

Mr. Levant needs to grow up...alot...and simply deal with what is a cost of doing business when you choose to publish controversial material. And he needs a lesson or two about how to do so with a level of tact and respect for the system...the very system that will protect his right to publish controversial things. And don't get me wrong, I think publishing the cartoons was the right thing to do. Without looking at the material, I would not have been able to decide which side of the issue I was on.

Having seen the cartoons, I can understand that they could be offensive, but am of the view that they are not so offensive that they should be censored from publication. Living in a free society means living with things that offend you...becuase they are what other free people choose.

I just fail to see how so many can become so outraged that a "radical" terrrorist-type has taken the unthinkable step and used a pen and paper to try to further his agenda. Seems far better to me than strapping into a dynamite vest...

FTA