Is it OK to insult Islam in Canada?

[Michael Hardner]

That simply is not true. There is ample room for interpretation of HR and hate speech rules and laws to cause a conviction for saying nasty things about Muslims or Jews or whatever, depending on context. Even the Hr boards which dismissed the complaints were not adamant about that dismissal. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Commission used words like " overall, "the views expressed in the Steyn article, when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature". Thus it can be fairly obviously inferred that they considered segments of the article to be considered less easy to dismiss if taken on their own.

Obviously if you are hate mongering, then insulting is implied. But the point is that insulting on its own isn't a crime.

[Muddy]

Although I am a marginal Christian I get wee bit upset at Christians being vilified in movies and newspapers and being called an infidel by other religions. But you know what they are not committing a hate crime. That is their view and in a free society it should be their right. I can take it!

By the way , I am now scanning the bible for loop holes as I am now in the twilight of my years. Maybe I should check out the Koran too just to be safe.

[Argus]

Obviously if you are hate mongering, then insulting is implied. But the point is that insulting on its own isn't a crime.

No? What is insulting? Saying bad things about people? What is hatemongering? Saying bad things about people.

It's a bloody fine line and I certainly don't feel the likes of human rights boards should be deciding it.

[GostHacked]

Leave it to the boys who do South Park to take it to the next level.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2010/04/22/south-park-muslim-episode.html

I must watch these episodes. This is one major reason I love South Park.

[Argus]

Leave it to the boys who do South Park to take it to the next level.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2010/04/22/south-park-muslim-episode.html

I must watch these episodes. This is one major reason I love South Park.

I think it worth noting that in subsequent reruns all references to Muhammed were bleeped out. It's okay to make fun of Budha, Jesus, and every other religion. But if you make fun of Muhammed some Muslims will kill you or set off bombs somewhere.

Islam - the religion of peace.

[bush_cheney2004]

Leave it to the boys who do South Park to take it to the next level....

There is only one level....free speech means the right to offend and "insult".

[GostHacked]

There is only one level....free speech means the right to offend and "insult".

No, they always take it to the next level.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, they always take it to the next level.

No, the "next level" is not new...it was defined years ago....see Al Goldstein and Larry Flynt.

[GostHacked]

No, the "next level" is not new...it was defined years ago....see Al Goldstein and Larry Flynt.

There will always be a next level. South Park will always take it there.

[Moonbox]

I enjoyed that episode. They didn't so much make fun of Mohammed as they made fun of the fundamentalists who wet their pants and blow themselves up any time someone pokes fun at them.

Well done guys.

[bush_cheney2004]

There will always be a next level. South Park will always take it there.

Of course...there was no such "next level" discourse before 1997....I have to remember your time horizon.

[Shwa]

Of course...there was no such "next level" discourse before 1997....I have to remember your time horizon.

And lets not forget Lenny Bruce. Heck, even his wikipedia entry is hilarious. Or http://www.lennybruceofficial.com:

"I won’t say ours was a tough school, but we had our own coroner. We used to write essays like: What I’m going to be if I grow up."

It is interesting that the response from RevolutionMuslim.com also used that "next level" to defend themselves of any wrong doing:

South Park airs ‘censored’ episode after threat

[jbg]

Obviously if you are hate mongering, then insulting is implied. But the point is that insulting on its own isn't a crime.

I don't want someone to have to spend over $10,000 for a lawyer to demonstrate that insult and not hate-mongering was meant by a particular statement is an insult and not hate-mongering.

[Born Free]

I don't want someone to have to spend over $10,000 for a lawyer to demonstrate that insult and not hate-mongering was meant by a particular statement is an insult and not hate-mongering.

One would have to spend $10K to get your statement interpreted...

[jbg]

One would have to spend $10K to get your statement interpreted...

Maybe that would be the cost of the tutoring you would need to understand the Canadian language.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't want someone to have to spend over $10,000 for a lawyer to demonstrate that insult and not hate-mongering was meant by a particular statement is an insult and not hate-mongering.

I concur that you shouldn't have to.

[Handsome Rob]

I concur that you shouldn't have to.

Which makes the case of the HRT's even more absurd, when they reject over 90% of complaints, and the one's they feel have merit end up being Mark Steyn, Guy Earle, B&B owners with sinusits, John Fulton, and all the other junk.

[Born Free]

Maybe that would be the cost of the tutoring you would need to understand the Canadian language.

That wasnt Canadian....perhaps you meant the word English...

Edited April 23, 2010 by Born Free

[Sir Bandelot]

I have shown in the past that we are hypocrites when it comes to free speech. Example, we (the west) imprison people who dare question the holocaust. We send the Ernst Zundels to jail in Germany for writing a pamphlet. Free speech is not entirely free despite what its proponents insist on. It only means, what the state will tolerate up to a point. If you go beyond that, you will be charged with a crime even though it's only words! Because in a sense words have great power, the right words at the right time can even threaten the security of the state.

Yes by law we are free to insult Islam, or other groups or people... to a point. Say anything against Israel or Judaism and you'll be branded "anti-semite". Say it enough times and you might go to jail. As George Bush once said, there's doing what's LEGAL, and there's doing what's RIGHT. And that's where the fight is, to determine the difference between the two.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Say anything against Israel or Judaism and you'll be branded "anti-semite". Say it enough times and you might go to jail. As George Bush once said, there's doing what's LEGAL, and there's doing what's RIGHT. And that's where the fight is, to determine the difference between the two.

No, you'll only go to jail for actual crimes, not speech itself. "Anti-semitic" speech is protected in the USA, and to a certain degree in Canada.

...At times, anti-Semitic conduct amounting to intimidation, harassment and discrimination is manifested not by overt anti-Semitic expression, but instead by anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiment that crosses the line into anti-Semitism.

We recognize that much vehemently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic speech can—and should —be protected First Amendment activity

. This is as it should be in a nation that values freedom of speech. For that reason, there is a high bar before any speech or conduct can amount to legally actionable harassment.

http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/letter_associationjlj_2010.asp

[Born Free]

... Say anything against Israel or Judaism and you'll be branded "anti-semite".

Only if you make it your lifes work...

[Bob]

I stand corrected - she was a host of a CityTV show - QueerTV - and was a frequent guest on MuchMusic as well. She went on to write a book that was critical of her religion. She's evidence against any statement that there are no voices of criticism, or no proponents of reform.

Actually, she does talk about what she sees as a lack of criticism among Muslims towards disturbing trends within the culture - specifically the movement of many young Muslims towards radicalization. I've not read her books (i.e. The Trouble With Islam), but I've seen quite few videos of her (long and short) discussing related subjects. She does hold the opinion that there isn't enough dissent within the mainstream Muslim community towards denouncing trends of violence and terrorism. She's also said that she sees too little dissent among Muslims towards those Muslim who are intolerant of differing viewpoints and those that subscribe to improper gender roles (primarily the mistreatment of women). Although Irshad Manji isn't alone (Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish come to mind), she's on a short list of critics of some components/trends of Islam who have "Muslim-credibility" by being Muslim themselves. She's also received quite a few threats against her and her family that she takes seriously.

[bloodyminded]

Actually, she does talk about what she sees as a lack of criticism among Muslims towards disturbing trends within the culture - specifically the movement of many young Muslims towards radicalization. I've not read her books (i.e. The Trouble With Islam), but I've seen quite few videos of her (long and short) discussing related subjects. She does hold the opinion that there isn't enough dissent within the mainstream Muslim community towards denouncing trends of violence and terrorism. She's also said that she sees too little dissent among Muslims towards those Muslim who are intolerant of differing viewpoints and those that subscribe to improper gender roles (primarily the mistreatment of women). Although Irshad Manji isn't alone (Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish come to mind), she's on a short list of critics of some components/trends of Islam who have "Muslim-credibility" by being Muslim themselves. She's also received quite a few threats against her and her family that she takes seriously.

The "Muslim-credbility" by being Muslim themselves" doesn't wash, because the only Muslim critics of Islam who are given any respect are those who refrain from severe criticism of the West.

So it's a wholly politicized issue in these terms.

Edward Said, a liberal humanist, was forever denouncing the harsher, illiberal aspects that exist in Muslim cultures. He also received many death threats. However, the establishment West ignored him because he also harshly condemned Western illiberal practices against Muslim people.

So, wrong story, wrong focus...let's ignore him.

Currently, the youngest MP in Afghanistan, Malalai Joya, should be ideologically embraced by Westerners who pretend to care about democracy in Afghanistan--having spent her adult life fighting for the rights of women, children, minorities, democracy, freedom of speech, and so on. She lives constantly under death threats, mostly for insulting our allies in Afghanistan. She's also untainted by alliances with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, which affects Manji's credibility somewhat...since they is not about principle, but about the retention and expansion of American power, primarily. That's where Manji stands.

However, we not only ignore Joya...we are hostile towards her. And why? Well, because she opposes the Northern Alliance Warlords, who are Islamist, theocratically-minded misogynist gangsters.....and we are not opposed to them.

The Islamist radicals...our friends; the democratic liberal humanist...not so much.

Therefore, when Joya mocks our "liberal values" by pointing out that we support Islamists and oppose democratic-minded human rights advocates like herself...well, of course we won't listen. Wrong narrative. It's hard to weep at the glorious sight of our flag and rub ourselves off to our attempted "liberation of Afghanistan" with irritants like Joya whispering ugly truths into our ears.

And so then we'll ask: "where are all the moderate Muslim voices?"

We'll ask it loudly enough to drown them out.

Well, we don't like them; we like their arch-conservative, fundamentalist enemies. So that's where they are. In case you were honestly wondering.

Edited May 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

The "Muslim-credbility" by being Muslim themselves" doesn't wash, because the only Muslim critics of Islam who are given any respect are those who refrain from severe criticism of the West.

I'm not sure where you're getting that information from. Can you be more specific about how you're measuring respect? Are you talking about airtime in the media or something along those lines? Those who sell lots of books? There are so many critics out there of so many policies from countries of the Western world all over the media from all slices of life.

Are you contesting the claims from some Muslim critics of components of their culture/religion that the mainstream is of their communities is falling short in several ways with respect to reigning in fundamentalism and radicalism, as well as undesirable values regarding intolerance of difference(s) as well as improper gender roles? You seem to be suggesting that there is widespread criticism of certain trends within the Islamic culture among those belonging to the culture/religion, but that they are ignored due to some sort of systemic censorship within our media?

So it's a wholly politicized issue in these terms.

I disagree. First of all, Irshad Manji isn't some sort of media-whore. She definitely isn't regularly on the mass media circuit. There are others like her, though, that do the not-so-popular circuit of giving lectures and participating in debates.

Edward Said, a liberal humanist, was forever denouncing the harsher, illiberal aspects that exist in Muslim cultures. He also received many death threats. However, the establishment West ignored him because he also harshly condemned Western illiberal practices against Muslim people.

What establishment are you talking about? Please be more specific. I've read very little about him, so I can't comment much on it. Still, in contemporary times, there are plenty of well-known critics of the West who get plenty of airtime from all streams of society. You seem to be suggesting that these critics are somehow shut out by "the establishment".

So, wrong story, wrong focus...let's ignore him.

Who's ignoring him?

Currently, the youngest MP in Afghanistan, Malalai Joya, should be ideologically embraced by Westerners who pretend to care about democracy in Afghanistan--having spent her adult life fighting for the rights of women, children, minorities, democracy, freedom of speech, and so on. She lives constantly under death threats, mostly for insulting our allies in Afghanistan. She's also untainted by alliances with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, which affects Manji's credibility somewhat...since they is not about principle, but about the retention and expansion of American power, primarily. That's where Manji stands.

You've lost me. Mentioning some Afghani MP? What has she got to do with anything we're talking about here? I'm not sure what Manji's "alliance" with the AEI (please be more specific) has anything to do with her credibility. If you've got a beef with her arguments or opinions, then address them specifically. I suspect that you don't know much about where Manji does stand, perhaps that's why you're attacking her "alliance" with the AEI rather than specifically addressing her opinions?

However, we not only ignore Joya...we are hostile towards her. And why? Well, because she opposes the Northern Alliance Warlords, who are Islamist, theocratically-minded misogynist gangsters.....and we are not opposed to them.

Who's "we"?

And so then we'll ask: "where are all the moderate Muslim voices?"

We'll ask it loudly enough to drown them out.

Well, we don't like them; we like their arch-conservative, fundamentalist enemies. So that's where they are. In case you were honestly wondering.

I think I'm beginning to regret replying to you...

Edited May 2, 2010 by Bob

[Shwa]

We'll ask it loudly enough to drown them out.

Well, we don't like them; we like their arch-conservative, fundamentalist enemies. So that's where they are. In case you were honestly wondering.

Another example of how the voices of the innocent are drowned out during times of war - what with all the bombs and gunfire going off. And the propaganda of course.