Is publishing Danish cartoons in Canada a "crime"?

[BC_chick]

jbg, would you be equally open to freedom of speech if a mainstream Canadian publisher printed cartoons which negatively stereotyped Jews?

It'd be different if it was Joe Blow's website who had printed the cartoons, but I'm talking about a so-called reputable media outlet. Imagine the Globe and Mail printing cartoons which stereotyped blacks as gun-totting thugs, or Jews as any given negative stereotype that may be attributed to you.

There'd be outrage and you know it.

[Peter F]

No, the HRC is trying mightily to.

How so? What action has AHRC taken in indicate they are mightily trying to shut Levant down?

[jbg]

jbg, would you be equally open to freedom of speech if a mainstream Canadian publisher printed cartoons which negatively stereotyped Jews?

Yes. I supported Ahenakaw. I supported Zundel. I feel very strongly on this issue.

[jbg]

How so? What action has AHRC taken in indicate they are mightily trying to shut Levant down?

What was the upshot of those hearings supposed to be, dinner at the winners' choice of restaurants?

[bush_cheney2004]

....There'd be outrage and you know it.

It's already been done....and there has been outrage. But nobody was assaulted or killed in protest. A boycott of the "offending" newspaper does not equal "jihad".

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45...ve_Cartoons.asp

Edited January 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

Yes. I supported Ahenakaw. I supported Zundel. I feel very strongly on this issue.

Though I commend your conviction here, I asked if would you be equally open to freedom of speech if a mainstream Canadian publisher printed cartoons which negatively stereotyped Jews. Zundel is to negative Jewish stereotypes as any anti-Islam hate-site on the internet is to negative Muslim stereotypes. Both of which fall into the "Joe Blow website" I referred to earlier.

So again I ask, would you think it's acceptable if the G&M ran cartoons depicting Jews as, oh I don't know... insert any negative Jewish stereotype you wish at this point. Would you still believe it's freedom of expression or would you think that a fine line is being blurred? How about blacks or Asians?

Freedom of expression doesn't override responsible journalism. As they say... you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre and call it freedom of speech.

Edited January 19, 2008 by BC_chick

[Peter F]

What was the upshot of those hearings supposed to be, dinner at the winners' choice of restaurants?

Ah. So its a forgone conclusion that the AHRC will find for the complainant. It's a done deal.

[geoffrey]

Freedom of expression doesn't override responsible journalism.

Yes it does. In each and every case. Freedom to think and say what you wish comes before anything else. Bottom line.

Especially someone's sorry little feelings. Too bad. Grow up. Sometimes in life you may be offended. Maybe we should make newborns sign a waiver.

As they say... you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre and call it freedom of speech.

The cartoons did not directly (or indirectly IMO) put anyone's life in danger. Not the same at all. I wanted to see the cartoons that were causing the controversy. Ezra had the balls to let his readers see what the fuss was about.

If the Islamic fundamentalists didn't go killing nuns and razing villages in response, this would have been a non-issue. It's not Ezra's deal. Responsible journalism is showing all the facts and letting your readers decide if cartoons are acceptable reasons to kill people.

[BC_chick]

It's already been done....and there has been outrage. But nobody was assaulted or killed in protest. A boycott of the "offending" newspaper does not equal "jihad".

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45...ve_Cartoons.asp

Again, I asked what would happen if a mainstream Canadian publisher printed cartoons which negatively stereotyped any group but Muslims.

The point here is that anyone can say what they want to, but the press has a bigger responsibility than that. And if the target of that negative stereotype in a mainstream Canadian publisher had been any group other than Muslims, there would not be debate about whether or not the actions of the newspaper were perfectly acceptable.

[Peter F]

If the Islamic fundamentalists didn't go killing nuns and razing villages in response, this would have been a non-issue. It's not Ezra's deal. Responsible journalism is showing all the facts and letting your readers decide if cartoons are acceptable reasons to kill people.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

....Freedom of expression doesn't override responsible journalism. As they say... you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre and call it freedom of speech.

Do anti-semitic cartoons in Quebec newspapers count?

Some three weeks ago, in close succession, anti-Semitic cartoons – at least two of which appeared to have been borrowed from Der Sturmer – were published on the editorial pages of three mainstream newspapers in the Canadian province of Quebec.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2240

Edited January 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[jbg]

Though I commend your conviction here, I asked if would you be equally open to freedom of speech if a mainstream Canadian publisher printed cartoons which negatively stereotyped Jews. Zundel is to negative Jewish stereotypes as any anti-Islam hate-site on the internet is to negative Muslim stereotypes. Both of which fall into the "Joe Blow website" I referred to earlier.

So again I ask, would you think it's acceptable if the G&M ran cartoons depicting Jews as, oh I don't know... insert any negative Jewish stereotype you wish at this point. Would you still believe it's freedom of expression or would you think that a fine line is being blurred? How about blacks or Asians?

Yes!!! I thought my starting my answer with the word "yes" followed by a "." would do the job.

Freedom of expression doesn't override responsible journalism. As they say... you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre and call it freedom of speech.

Aside from yelling "fire" in a theatre I wouldn't place too many other restrictions on speech. As for "responsible journalism" that's the job of the marketplace, not HRC's.

[bush_cheney2004]

Aside from yelling "fire" in a theatre I wouldn't place too many other restrictions on speech. As for "responsible journalism" that's the job of the marketplace, not HRC's.

Agreed...I guess some don't get it. Hence "hate speech laws" in Canada, not in the United States.

Edited January 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

Yes it does. In each and every case. Freedom to think and say what you wish comes before anything else. Bottom line.

Especially someone's sorry little feelings. Too bad. Grow up. Sometimes in life you may be offended. Maybe we should make newborns sign a waiver.

The cartoons did not directly (or indirectly IMO) put anyone's life in danger. Not the same at all. I wanted to see the cartoons that were causing the controversy. Ezra had the balls to let his readers see what the fuss was about.

If the Islamic fundamentalists didn't go killing nuns and razing villages in response, this would have been a non-issue. It's not Ezra's deal. Responsible journalism is showing all the facts and letting your readers decide if cartoons are acceptable reasons to kill people.

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

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?

[bush_cheney2004]

...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?

So what if they are "outraged". People get outraged when stories about abused cats are printed too.

[jbg]

Do anti-semitic cartoons in Quebec newspapers count?

Some three weeks ago, in close succession, anti-Semitic cartoons – at least two of which appeared to have been borrowed from Der Sturmer – were published on the editorial pages of three mainstream newspapers in the Canadian province of Quebec.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2240

That absolutely should be printed.

[BC_chick]

Do anti-semitic cartoons in Quebec newspapers count?

Some three weeks ago, in close succession, anti-Semitic cartoons – at least two of which appeared to have been borrowed from Der Sturmer – were published on the editorial pages of three mainstream newspapers in the Canadian province of Quebec.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2240

From your article:

This is not to say there is no anti-Semitism elsewhere in Canada. But were such cartoons to appear in the Globe and Mail (a national paper out of Toronto) or the Calgary Herald or Vancouver Sun, all hell would break loose.

Exactly my point.

[bush_cheney2004]

That absolutely should be printed.

Of course...and was printed in a "mainstream Canadian newspaper". Riots did not ensue....cars were not burned....death threats were not made. The market will judge newspapers on all content, offensive or otherwise.

[BC_chick]

Yes!!! I thought my starting my answer with the word "yes" followed by a "." would do the job.

Aside from yelling "fire" in a theatre I wouldn't place too many other restrictions on speech. As for "responsible journalism" that's the job of the marketplace, not HRC's.

Well, not quite. You compared Zundell to a major publisher when I specifically made that distinction. Nonetheless, kudos to you for being so open-minded.

As for the second paragraph, yes, I'm not going to even pretend that my opinion is superior to the HRC. I'm merely stating my opinion on the issue just as you are.

[bush_cheney2004]

From your article:

Exactly my point.

What? Are you saying that Quebec newspapers don't count? Please, that domestic neurosis is the topic for another thread.

So far, no one in Quebec’s Jewish community – or any Jewish community anywhere – has rioted, burned any embassies, threatened beheadings or caused the cartoonists in question to go into perpetual hiding. And the silence in Canada’s mainstream media has been deafening... and revealing.

Edited January 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

What? Are you saying that Quebec newspapers don't count?

I just quoted your own article.

Again, I'm not debating the legalities here, I'm arguing strictly about the morality and ethics behind the issue. Just because I have a right to go around calling people ugly on the street doesn't mean that it's perfectly acceptable for me to do so or that I ought to.

As for you bringing up Muslim reaction, what's your point? If I come up to you and practice my freedom of speech by calling you ugly and you turn around and slap me, how does that take away your questionable manner of practicing your freedom of speech?

I'm not arguing that Muslims are the friendliest bunch on the planet. I'm stating that the press did not exercise their rights in the most responsible manner.

Edited January 19, 2008 by BC_chick

[bush_cheney2004]

I just quoted your own article.

Again, I'm not debating the legalities here, I'm arguing strictly about the morality and ethics behind the issue. Just because I have a right to go around calling people ugly on the street doesn't mean that it's perfectly acceptable for me to do so or that I ought to.

It's not my article....it was linked from Brussels, delighting in the double standard for media anti-Semitism in Canada vis-a-vis "Danish" cartoons. Cartoons were published in a mainstream newspaper, and all hell would not "break loose", not even if published in Toronto or Vancouver....which are not superior or more enlightened than Quebec.

Edited January 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[BC_chick]

It's not my article....it was linked from Brussels, delighting in the double standard for media anti-Semitism in Canada vis-a-vis "Danish" cartoons. Cartoons were published in a mainstream newspaper, and all hell would not "break loose", not even if published in Toronto or Vancouver....which are not superior or more enlightened than Quebec.

Read my response in the post above yours. A negative reaction does not negate a negative action.... I'm discussing the negative action.

[bush_cheney2004]

Read my response in the post above yours. A negative reaction does not negate a negative action.... I'm discussing the negative action.

Uh..OK..it was added only moments ago. Is it your purpose to prevent the possiblity of negative reactions with prior restraint on what you admit is the legal exercise of free speech? Your moral or ethical boundaries do not require others to observe same.

Not sure where you are going with "not arguing that Muslims are the friendliest bunch on the planet"...????

Edited January 19, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

These Commissions are almost humourous:

The Quebec Human Rights Commission has found in favour of four Montreal teens who claimed they were victims of racial profiling by the Montreal police.

The commission recommended in a decision made public yesterday that the city put measures in place to put an end to racial profiling.

It also ordered the city to pay $47,000 in damages plus interest to the four teens and their families for the incidents that took place in August, 2003.

But the cheque isn't exactly in the mail, Montreal's La Presse reports today. Mayor Gerald Tremblay says he doesn't plan to conform to the commission's recommendations and both the city and police say the officers did nothing wrong.

Montreal police also deny their officers take part in racial profiling and plan to contest the ruling.

Toronto Star

So the Montreal police force (with the support of the mayor of Montreal - what else could he do?) defies a Quebec Human Rights Commission. Indeed, this is an instance where the charge of discrimination is serious.

To say that Canada has thoroughly botched its human rights policies is an understatement. Mark Steyn won't appear before a tribunal for about two years. Other cases are never pursued for the simple reason that an investigator doesn't want to. When a tribunal renders a judgment, the respondent just ignores it. And taxpayers pay for this charade.

Edited January 19, 2008 by August1991