Censorship

[August1991]

Rowan Atkinson on the defeat of proposed UK legislation about hate speech:

Celebrating the amendments made in the Lords and kept in by MPs in a one-vote victory last night, Mr Atkinson said: "I could not be more pleased with the final version of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill that has now passed through parliament. From it, it seems to me, everybody gains.

"Those who seek to threaten religious communities will know that such behaviour has now been outlawed and those who have sought to retain the right to criticise and ridicule religious beliefs and practices now have those rights enshrined in legislation in a manner never previously achieved."

Thanking MPs and organisations such as the National Secular Society and the Barnabas Fund, along with the Christian Institute and the Evangelical Alliance, who all campaigned ceaselessly against the legislation, he said: "Something I feel that I have learnt over this long campaign is that hate legislation, no matter how well intended, is never more than a mechanism to paper over the cracks in society.

"Of course, I would sympathise with anyone who says, 'I would rather look at the wallpaper than the cracks', and if such legislation can provide short term comfort to vulnerable communities, that is all to the good. But it will never provide any solutions to the ills of society. In the absence of other action, behind the paper, the wall will continue to crumble."

The Times

Warren Kinsella on his web site:

Firstly, I am a censor. I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression.

Secondly, I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, kill.

Thirdly, I believe that we are entitled, as a society, to sanction (civilly or criminally) those who use words and images to deliberately or recklessly inflict harm on others - as with laws relating to the propagation of hate, or laws prohibiting child pornography, or defamation codes, or laws designed to sanction pornography that promotes violence against women and children.

And, yes, yes, yes: I believe we are entitled as society to place reasonable limits on the expression of actual hatred towards religious faiths. I believe that words and images that expose the tenets of a person's faith to hatred should be condemned and, where appropriate, punished. Expressing hatred about someone else's spiritual beliefs is not free speech. It is hatred, and it is almost always calculated to cause pain and hurt.

Which brings me, like everyone else this weekend, to the global debate raging about cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed as a terrorist. The cartoons have set off a wave of emotional protests and threats on a global scale - and have fostered a vigorous debate about what constitutes free speech.

I will not reprint the cartoons here because I have looked at them, and I can certainly see why pious Muslims would be so upset. The cartoons are offensive and hateful towards Islam.

Warren Kinsella

----

Atkinson is an actor, and Kinsella is a political operative. And yet I think Atkinson has a much better grasp of the issue at hand and what is at stake. Kinsella has confirmed to me that he is nothing more than a political tactician, with no scrupules or underlying beliefs at all.

Kinsella is taking a 1970s version of Trudeau one-world, multiculturalism and applying it to a question from the 21st century.

Even if one agrees with hate censorship as a restriction on freedom of speech, there is no way that any of these cartoons can be construed as direct incitement to violence. If they are, then we have a whole new definition of hate literature.

Kinsella has stated in effect that there will be one measure of hate literature for Jews and Christians, and another measure for Muslims. The criteria for censorship is whether speech offends pious believers.

It is one thing to threaten someone and it is another to ridicule them. It is the ridicule that the fundamentalists find offensive, and this is what they would like to ban.

----

Following Atkinson's thought, there are people who strongly dislike Islamic fundamentalists and are bound to express their dislike in ways that offend pious Muslims. If they can't express their dislike, we will be papering over this issue and the wall behind will crumble further.

[Argus]

Kinsella has always been a very small man, like Chretien, who he partnered with, small, petty, cruel, in his own way, unforgiving, vengeful, with a sly, weasel's shrewdness but no real wisdom. Censorship does not protect people from hate. It is absurd to risk the basic tenet of our society - freedom of speech - over the fear someone will be offended.

As to the cartoons. We must remember that Muhammed was not merely a rapist warlord and mass murderer, he was also a ruler. Thus the Koran includes instructions on government and law. Everywhere there are substantial numbers of Muslims, Islam is a political movement, its followers often violent, always demanding rule under the laws set forth in the Koran.

Two of the cartoons in particular, the ones most often cited as insulting to Islam, are quite relevent political commentaries on Islamism; the bomb shaped turban, and the guy telling all those suicide bombers he's out of virgins. If one can't mock the hypocrisy of a political movement then where is the freedom?

[August1991]

A column that I enjoyed reading about this issue:

But offence implicitly offered, and offence actually taken, are two different matters. On the whole Christians, for example, take offence less readily than Muslims. The case for treating them, in consequence, differently is obvious, but we should be wary of it. It means groups are allowed to be as thin-skinned as they wish: to dictate for themselves how delicately we must tread with them — to create, as it were, their own definition of respect and require us to observe it. Those who do this may not always realise that that they create serious buried resentments among those of fellow-citizens who are more broad-shouldered about the trading of insult.

....

Many faiths and ideologies achieve and maintain their predominance partly through fear. They, of course, would call it “respect”. But whatever you call it, it intimidates. The reverence, the awe — even the dread — that their gods, their KGB or their priesthoods demand and inspire among the laity are vital to the authority they wield.

Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational debate may in the end yield to derision.

Mathew Parris - The Times

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

from the above Matthew Parris quote,

Many faiths and ideologies achieve and maintain their predominance partly through fear. They, of course, would call it “respect”. But whatever you call it, it intimidates. The reverence, the awe — even the dread — that their gods, their KGB or their priesthoods demand and inspire among the laity are vital to the authority they wield.

Government too, could be said to confuse fealty with respect. However, lack of respect, or even anarchy, are not automatically desirable simply because of their polar opposition to authority.

[geoffrey]

Kinsella has always been a very small man, like Chretien, who he partnered with, small, petty, cruel, in his own way, unforgiving, vengeful, with a sly, weasel's shrewdness but no real wisdom. Censorship does not protect people from hate. It is absurd to risk the basic tenet of our society - freedom of speech - over the fear someone will be offended.

As to the cartoons. We must remember that Muhammed was not merely a rapist warlord and mass murderer, he was also a ruler. Thus the Koran includes instructions on government and law. Everywhere there are substantial numbers of Muslims, Islam is a political movement, its followers often violent, always demanding rule under the laws set forth in the Koran.

Two of the cartoons in particular, the ones most often cited as insulting to Islam, are quite relevent political commentaries on Islamism; the bomb shaped turban, and the guy telling all those suicide bombers he's out of virgins. If one can't mock the hypocrisy of a political movement then where is the freedom?

Argus, you really like your freedom of speech don't ya.

Islam is a political movement? I don't know if I buy that. Criticism is good for anything though. Teaches you your mistakes.

Kind of funny that the Muslim world is burning down embassies and commiting acts of terrorism in response to cartoons that depicit this?

[YankAbroad]

Firstly, I am a censor. I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression.

In other words, he believes that his opinion, and his opinion alone, should govern what is "right and proper."

I suspect that if, say, Stockwell Day became a "censor" and began declaring much of Kinsella's expression to be outside the bounds of "reasonable and proper limits on human expression," Kinsella would be screaming bloody murder.

God, I hate small-minded government activist statists who want to take our freedoms away to satisfy some political agenda of their own. They make themselves into gods who deign from on high what "is or is not acceptable," and would never subject themselves to others' assessments of their own expression, behaviour or activities. They are hypocrites of the highest order and profoundly dangerous to free and democratic societies.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

How is censorship to be eliminated?

Evidently, The Rolling Stones were censored at the Superbowl. They were told beforehand, "Sing your lyrics, but we are going to turn down the microphone at certain times, to hide the naughty bits". I read that the Stones were a bit miffed, but played their songs anyway. Should they have walked off stage?

I also read that the Danish publisher of the 'offensive cartoons' was going to run the Holocaust cartoons as well.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/World...rc=w020843A.xml

As well they should. They should also challenge Iran to emulate 'western reaction'.

[August1991]

I suspect that if, say, Stockwell Day became a "censor" and began declaring much of Kinsella's expression to be outside the bounds of "reasonable and proper limits on human expression," Kinsella would be screaming bloody murder.

God, I hate small-minded government activist statists who want to take our freedoms away to satisfy some political agenda of their own. They make themselves into gods who deign from on high what "is or is not acceptable," and would never subject themselves to others' assessments of their own expression, behaviour or activities. They are hypocrites of the highest order and profoundly dangerous to free and democratic societies.

Very good post, IMO.

Thelonious,

If I look at this question purely, it is not how to eliminate censorship but rather how to ensure no government censorship. The Danish PM was right to say that he has nothing to do with these cartoons.

The US Constitution got it right in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... "

How individuals among themselves decide what constitutes polite or civilized speech is for them to decide. The government, however, should not legislate controls on the freedom of speech. By doing so, even when well-intentioned, the government creates many other problems that will inevitably create harm.

There is now a case of professor in Nova Scotia who put the cartoons on his office door. (This is similar to your Rolling Stones example.)

An outspoken professor who was forced to remove incendiary drawings of the Prophet Muhammad from his office door now plans to display them in his classroom to prove a point about freedom of speech.

Peter March, who teaches philosophy at St. Mary's University in Halifax, says he should be allowed to display the images for his students.

``I probably will take them into the classroom tomorrow morning,'' he said in an interview Wednesday.

``There's a clash between (the university's) perception of protecting health and safety and my perception of what my job is. My job is, I think, to take risks.''

Chronicle Herald

Ideally, if the university doesn't want to have such professors, then it should fire him. If students don't want to study at such a university, they can go elsewhere. This is a private matter. The government need not be involved.

----

The Left feels the government should control all space for the good of mankind. In this cartoon example, I get the impression that the Right feels people have to publish these cartoons.

The government should not get involved in restricting free speech. After that, it is up to individuals to decide how or what they consider to be appropriate. A public setting is not a government setting.

----

More than anything, I am saddened by these events. I have read too many ridiculous quotes (usually on the Left, arbritrary arguments defending Islamic fundamentalists) but also inflammatory Western comments about Muslims and people living outside Europe and North America.

A walk in any cemetery in Canada and a glance at the tombstones will show quickly that 100 years ago, Canadians were a pious people who would consider this debate grotesque and blasphemous.

Because we have popularized the Enlightenment in the past 50 years or so, and because we now teach the Scientific Method to all schoolchildren, we should not expect the same of all those who live around us.

It is possible for people of entirely different viewpoints to live side by side. In cold war times, it was called peaceful coexistence. We have to find a similar accomodation.

[southerncomfort]

Havn't red the whole thing yet, in a nutshell how does this compare to Bill C250 could Canada learn from this?

[Argus]

Dear August1991,

How is censorship to be eliminated?

Evidently, The Rolling Stones were censored at the Superbowl. They were told beforehand, "Sing your lyrics, but we are going to turn down the microphone at certain times, to hide the naughty bits". I read that the Stones were a bit miffed, but played their songs anyway. Should they have walked off stage?

I don't know why they didn't. It's not like they need the money or publicity. They should have just refused, then. If they had any real artistic integrity.

I also read that the Danish publisher of the 'offensive cartoons' was going to run the Holocaust cartoons as well.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/World...rc=w020843A.xml

As well they should. They should also challenge Iran to emulate 'western reaction'.

all running the Holocaust cartoons will do is to demonstrate just how crude, vicious and hateful the Iranians are - which I suspect the editor knows full well, even if the Iranians are too stupid to understand or care.

[Argus]

The US Constitution got it right in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... "

How individuals among themselves decide what constitutes polite or civilized speech is for them to decide. The government, however, should not legislate controls on the freedom of speech. By doing so, even when well-intentioned, the government creates many other problems that will inevitably create harm.

The whole cartoon reeks of hypocrisy and stupidity.

On the one hand, we have Muslims, a crude, cruel people whose media is filled with the most crude, ugly depictions of Jews, Christians and foreigners, running through the streets screaming in rage because a tiny country most have barely ever heard of half a world away printed some cartoons. Do they expect Christians on the other side of the world to obey their religious dictates? Can you imagine their astonishment and indignation if someone suggested the people of Iran or Syria should not do something or show something because Danish or Italian people would find that offensive? Muslim leaders have made the pious claim that it's "all about respect". It's not. It's about force. It's about obedience. It's about their belief that non-Muslims must obey the tenets of the Muslim faith, no matter where on Earth they live.

And the hypocrisy over here is just about as bad. Only Le Devoir has run the cartoons, even though this is a huge international story going on a week now. I don't believe any in the US but the Philadelphia Inquirer has run them. In both countries the editors' pompously declare that they won't run them because they're offensive to Muslims. When has that ever stopped the media from reporting on a story? If this involved highly offensice Christian cartoons you can be sure they'd have already appeared on the front page of every newspaper in North America. For example, The NY Times is among those who have refused to show the cartoons because they're offensive to Muslims. The NYT soundly defended so-called "artist" Andres Serrano when he submerged a crusifix in a jar of urine and called it "piss Jesus". They adored Terence McNally's play wherin Jesus had homosexual sex with Judas. They waxed poetically over a New York museum show which depicted Mary being showered in Elephant dung, surrounded by little pornographic cutouts, and praised the museum's courage for holding the show. But suddenly they're respectful of people's religious beliefs and piously refuse to cause offence?

The same people, moreover, who have called for respect for Islam have shown precious little respect for Christians, making no secret of their contempt and distrust for Christian religious people and openly mocking their beliefs. Maybe Christians need to learn how to build bombs in order to get the pious respect of Western liberals.

[durok]

I heard on a news program within the last day or two that the reason Islamists don't allow depictions of The Prophet (Mohammed) is because he is a man and 'The Prophet' but he isn't Allah. They are frightened that if there were to be pictures or statues of Mohammed, some of 'the faithful' might start worshipping Mohammed as well as (instead of?) Allah. Does anyone know if that is the reason? i.e. you can't show me a picture of someone because I might start worshipping him?

I hope the reasoning is not that silly. Why it would almost be like making women wear lots of heavy clothing and veils so that men don't see a lock of hair or an elbow and become aroused - - but, of course, no one would do that.

[geoffrey]

I heard on a news program within the last day or two that the reason Islamists don't allow depictions of The Prophet (Mohammed) is because he is a man and 'The Prophet' but he isn't Allah. They are frightened that if there were to be pictures or statues of Mohammed, some of 'the faithful' might start worshipping Mohammed as well as (instead of?) Allah. Does anyone know if that is the reason? i.e. you can't show me a picture of someone because I might start worshipping him?

I hope the reasoning is not that silly. Why it would almost be like making women wear lots of heavy clothing and veils so that men don't see a lock of hair or an elbow and become aroused - - but, of course, no one would do that.

That actually is the reason yes.

[Argus]

I heard on a news program within the last day or two that the reason Islamists don't allow depictions of The Prophet (Mohammed) is because he is a man and 'The Prophet' but he isn't Allah. They are frightened that if there were to be pictures or statues of Mohammed, some of 'the faithful' might start worshipping Mohammed as well as (instead of?) Allah. Does anyone know if that is the reason? i.e. you can't show me a picture of someone because I might start worshipping him?

There actually is no prohibition in the Koran from showing the prophet in pictures or drawings. It's more of a cultural imperative which goes along with Islam, as their religious leaders fear people would start thinking he was God.

I hope the reasoning is not that silly. Why it would almost be like making women wear lots of heavy clothing and veils so that men don't see a lock of hair or an elbow and become aroused - - but, of course, no one would do that.

Actually, Iran's former prime minister said that womens heads and hair must be covered because it "emanates dangerous rays that could drive men wild with sexual lust and thus undermine social peace."

I am not making this up.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear durok,

They are frightened that if there were to be pictures or statues of Mohammed, some of 'the faithful' might start worshipping Mohammed as well as (instead of?) Allah. Does anyone know if that is the reason? i.e. you can't show me a picture of someone because I might start worshipping him?

As geoffrey states, 'yes', it is true. That is why both the Muslims and the Jews deride Christians as 'idol-worshippers'.

[scribblet]

Just heard on CFRB that a professor in a Maritime University put copies of the cartoons on his door - he was told to take them down.

Bill Carroll thinks he is wrong and we shouldn't offend the muslims, heck maybe its even islamaphobia, we are just stirring them up. Hmmm

[Black Dog]

On the one hand, we have Muslims, a crude, cruel people whose media is filled with the most crude, ugly depictions of Jews, Christians and foreigners, running through the streets screaming in rage because a tiny country most have barely ever heard of half a world away printed some cartoons.

Kind of an aside here, but one of the things that have struck me about this is the way western media and pundits (including people here on MLW) view the Islamic world as a teeming mass, a monolithic entity with uniform motivations and aspirations. If these interpretations are to be believed, then Afghanis are no different from Egyptians or Indonesians, which is patently ridiculous. There's a whole lot of local context missing, but I guess it's a lot handier to have an "Other" to rail against.

[Black Dog]

Here's another thought: a lot of the same people rallying behind "freedom of speech" in light of this cartoon controversy are also the one's getting their knickers in a knot over Grand Theft Auto and Janet Jackson's titty. Hell, look at any of the SSM threads and see how people react to having the gay lifestyle "in their face".

Free speech is great when its ours.

[Argus]

Here's another thought: a lot of the same people rallying behind "freedom of speech" in light of this cartoon controversy are also the one's getting their knickers in a knot over Grand Theft Auto and Janet Jackson's titty. Hell, look at any of the SSM threads and see how people react to having the gay lifestyle "in their face".

Free speech is great when its ours.

Freedom of speech is not a right/left issue, or shouldn't be. But just because one respects freedom of speech that does not automatically mean one should never object or protest because of what someone, particularly for commercial purposes, does with that freedom.

Imho the Danish cartoons are political commentary, the most important part of freedom of speech. Grand Theft Auto is more like freedom of commercial exploitation. The Jackson thing was a case of something which, in another context, wouldn't have bothered anyone. But doing it at a family-oriented sporting event was considered somewhat low. And it's not like the Danish cartoons were in anyone's face. You had to buy them.

[Argus]

On the one hand, we have Muslims, a crude, cruel people whose media is filled with the most crude, ugly depictions of Jews, Christians and foreigners, running through the streets screaming in rage because a tiny country most have barely ever heard of half a world away printed some cartoons.

Kind of an aside here, but one of the things that have struck me about this is the way western media and pundits (including people here on MLW) view the Islamic world as a teeming mass, a monolithic entity with uniform motivations and aspirations.

You are aware, I'm sure, that Arab nations are artificial creations of colonial powers. There really isn't a heckuva lot of difference between the "man in the street" in Egypt, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon.

f these interpretations are to be believed, then Afghanis are no different from Egyptians or Indonesians, which is patently ridiculous. There's a whole lot of local context missing, but I guess it's a lot handier to have an "Other" to rail against.

When the same action produces identicial reactions all through the Muslim world, I think it largely unnecessary to make national distinctions. Sure, the Syrians and Iranians helped stoke the fires in Syria, Iran, Lebanon and Gaza. But the genuine outrage seems to be almost unanimous throughout the Muslim world. Not all reacted with pointless violence, but I'd suggest if one of the Danish cartoonists were handy he'd have been mobbed and probably killed in any Muslim nation.

[Black Dog]

Imho the Danish cartoons are political commentary, the most important part of freedom of speech. Grand Theft Auto is more like freedom of commercial exploitation. The Jackson thing was a case of something which, in another context, wouldn't have bothered anyone. But doing it at a family-oriented sporting event was considered somewhat low. And it's not like the Danish cartoons were in anyone's face. You had to buy them

It's not like Grand Theft Auto (which was controversial more for sex than for the inherent violence of the game) was in anybody's face. And hell, even Janet's boob was on screen for all of a half second (and curiously, it was its exposure, not the violence of the act which caused the exposure, that was the issue): you had to strain to see it. My point here is that the western world has some pretty bizzare hang ups: freeedom of speech is not absolute here, so it's a mite hypocritical for the same people who equivocate about free speech here to suddenlt become its staunchest champions when the nasty Other is threatening it.

You are aware, I'm sure, that Arab nations are artificial creations of colonial powers. There really isn't a heckuva lot of difference between the "man in the street" in Egypt, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon.

I thought we were talking abot Muslims, not Arabs. Clearly, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iran are culturally and ethnically different from Iraq etc.

When the same action produces identicial reactions all through the Muslim world, I think it largely unnecessary to make national distinctions.

But by your own admission, it did not provoke identical reactions. Yes, the outrage was across the board, but its expression was different: why did some riot and others not? Who were the rioters and what was their position within their own society? Were they predominantly Sunni or Shiite? When you start delving into questions like these and exploring the divisions within Muslim societies, the western narrative ("those people") crumbles apart.

[Argus]

Imho the Danish cartoons are political commentary, the most important part of freedom of speech. Grand Theft Auto is more like freedom of commercial exploitation. The Jackson thing was a case of something which, in another context, wouldn't have bothered anyone. But doing it at a family-oriented sporting event was considered somewhat low. And it's not like the Danish cartoons were in anyone's face. You had to buy them

It's not like Grand Theft Auto (which was controversial more for sex than for the inherent violence of the game) was in anybody's face. And hell, even Janet's boob was on screen for all of a half second (and curiously, it was its exposure, not the violence of the act which caused the exposure, that was the issue): you had to strain to see it. My point here is that the western world has some pretty bizzare hang ups: freeedom of speech is not absolute here, so it's a mite hypocritical for the same people who equivocate about free speech here to suddenlt become its staunchest champions when the nasty Other is threatening it.

First: You're splitting hairs. There are very few people who want to ban GTA, just restrict it to adults. Jackson's boob might have upset people, but no one wanted her buried to her chest and stoned for it (which is what might have happened in a Muslim country). Certainly there are some here on left and right (mostly left) who have less respect for freedom of speech than others. But I regard virtually any restriction of freedom of speech to be dangerous, whether it be offensive or racist language, pornography, including child porn, or open sedition, and I think I've been fairly clear about that. Someone is saying bad things about your race? Suck it up. Some old geezer is staring at a naked picture of a kid in his basement? Why should I care? Some guy wants to bring in Communism - or Facism, or even Islamism, let them spout.

That doesn't mean I approve of any of that, merely that I don't see why I should be able to impose my sense of morals or my sense of what is or is not offensive on other people. It also doesn't mean I can't argue against them, mock them, jeer at them, or point out their many idiotic errors, of course. Freedom of speech runs both ways. As long as you're not trying to force me to watch, read, or listen to whatever crap you're spouting then go ahead and spout. Maybe I'll spout back. Maybe I'll ignore you.

You are aware, I'm sure, that Arab nations are artificial creations of colonial powers. There really isn't a heckuva lot of difference between the "man in the street" in Egypt, Syria, Iraq or Lebanon.

I thought we were talking abot Muslims, not Arabs. Clearly, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iran are culturally and ethnically different from Iraq etc.

The funny thing about Islam as a cultural background, is that its extremely imperalist, and all of its origins are in Arabia. Their holy books are even only supposed to be printed in Arabic. All the customs and laws dictated by the Koran came from an Arab in what used to be called Arabia, and has been imposed on all its adherants. So while other Muslim nations are ethnically different from Arabs the religious culture of Islam which serves as a background to their lives is Arab.

When the same action produces identicial reactions all through the Muslim world, I think it largely unnecessary to make national distinctions.

But by your own admission, it did not provoke identical reactions. Yes, the outrage was across the board, but its expression was different:

The reaction I'm talking about was the outrage not only that someone would insult the prophet, but that anyone should be allowed to insult the prophet without being punished. Even indfidels a half a world away. No one anywhere shrugged and said "well, they're not Muslims and not from this country so it isn't very important."

why did some riot and others not? Who were the rioters and what was their position within their own society? Were they predominantly Sunni or Shiite? When you start delving into questions like these and exploring the divisions within Muslim societies, the western narrative ("those people") crumbles apart.

Rioting or not seems to be dependant on the degree of political control. If their tribal or national leaders permitted them or encouraged them to riot, they rioted. If not, they didn't.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Dear durok,

They are frightened that if there were to be pictures or statues of Mohammed, some of 'the faithful' might start worshipping Mohammed as well as (instead of?) Allah. Does anyone know if that is the reason? i.e. you can't show me a picture of someone because I might start worshipping him?

As geoffrey states, 'yes', it is true. That is why both the Muslims and the Jews deride Christians as 'idol-worshippers'.

why are we getting caught up in this?

this debate on "why" we are offending isn't the issue. the fact that we have the freedom to offend IS the issue.

last time i checked we have the freedom in this country to say and print offensive material.

am i mistaken? if I am, perhaps the muslim faith has been successful in its attempt to curtail our personal freedoms in the interest of it's personal beliefs???

[Black Dog]

So while other Muslim nations are ethnically different from Arabs the religious culture of Islam which serves as a background to their lives is Arab.

That's still a cop out. I have a hard time believeing that the cultural differences between Persians and Arabs or what have you doesn't inform any of their actions with respect to Islam.

The reaction I'm talking about was the outrage not only that someone would insult the prophet, but that anyone should be allowed to insult the prophet without being punished. Even indfidels a half a world away. No one anywhere shrugged and said "well, they're not Muslims and not from this country so it isn't very important."

I'm not so sure about that. One of the big issues with Islam is the lack of a central authority makes it very difficult to get a comprehensive picture: there's so many different viewpoints and, in a religion with over a billion adherents and a variety of different sects, it's impossible to say "no one said X". Moderate voices seldom get much airtime.

Rioting or not seems to be dependant on the degree of political control. If their tribal or national leaders permitted them or encouraged them to riot, they rioted. If not, they didn't.

Again: I don't buy it. Take Syria for example: I find it quite doubtful that the secular Arab nationalist Baath regime would whip up any religious sentiment, given the danger radical Islam poses to such regimes.

[Josh]

The freedom of the press is a right enshrined in our constitution. It was established to benefit all Canadians, allowing them to write, publish and read whatever material they personally feel will best enrich the intellectual experience. Thusly, it is not the duty of the government to limit the publishing of the cartoons in question; instead, we must rely on the knowledge, intelligence, and maturity of the Canadian populace to make a personal judgment call as to whether or not to purchase the magazines that the cartoons are published in.