Controversial Cartoons

[betsy]

The Western Standards will publish some of the cartoons that caused bloody riots all over the world.

Do you think they should or not?

[na85]

yes

[August1991]

"I think the fact that people choose to reprint the cartoons could put our troops in danger," Riad Saloojee with the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations told an Ottawa news conference.

"That's, I think, one of the reasons why major (Canadian) media outlets have been responsible and chosen not to do that."

CTV

"Responsible?"

It is very hard not to interpret that statement as a form of intimidation. The suggestion is that if Canadians do not behave in the way expected, then Canadians will suffer violence. (I understand that the statement is not meant as a threat but the result is the same.)

I wonder how many newspapers have chosen not to publish these cartoons because of such a threat. Colby Cosh made that argument, noting that newspapers and magazines have identifiable offices and journalists. Bloggers such as Cosh are not so readily identifiable.

Among the various unfortunate aspects to this cartoon business, it is this form of intimidation that I find so wrong. The history of the past century shows that the western countries do not respond well to intimidation and if anything is likely to get a reaction, it is an attempt to intimidate.

For the moment, I am relieved that cooler heads prevail.

[cybercoma]

No nation should resign to the threat of violence from those who would murder innocent civilians. If anything we should be printing these cartoons to show them they cannot get their way through violent means.

[geoffrey]

No nation should resign to the threat of violence from those who would murder innocent civilians. If anything we should be printing these cartoons to show them they cannot get their way through violent means.

Agreed. I don't know what the left is whining about. Trudeau (the Liberal champion of everything right...) stood against these type of strongarmed tactics in the FLQ crisis.

Just watching the hour paint the west as hicks again. Ezra, "FROM THE WEST" was said to be criticised by Harper "FROM THE SAME REGION"... like he couldn't make it more obvious his blantant hate from the west. Then George says the Standard has lowered the bar.

If the Star printed the comics, it wouldn't be an issue at all. But because a Jew from Calgary did, all shit needs to hit the fan.

Now apparently, in the East, they've renamed the Danish (bakery item Danish), the roses of Muhammed.

[Conservative1]

We have the right to free speech...there is no reason they shouldn't have published it, people want to know what the hoopla is about... Really, I guess what I'm trying to express is a heartfelt F@#$ THEM! :angry:

[betsy]

As some commentators had said, and which I believe is true, fundamentalists are using the issue in fueling this religious war against the west.

And it's about fredom of speech and expression.

Remember Salomon Rushdie?

Some journalists talk of offensiveness and responsiblity. Where were they when a slab of meat hung on a cross was passed off as "art" in an art gallery? Or when movies depict a blasphemous version of Christ?

Sure there were protests from Christians....but I hardly saw any articles preaching about responsibility and offensiveness. But I digress....

I, for one, am curious as to what these cartoons are all about. I've not seen one yet. If Muslims are saying it is blasphemous and offensive to them....I want to see for myself and form an opinion based on what I see.

That is what these magazines are doing. Bringing it to us to inform us what the uproar is all about.

Those who bowed out and refused to print them....I think they didn't do it out of principle. They're just got scared.

[Spike22]

The violence around the world by the muslims shows that they do not turn the other cheek and ignore these types of things directed at their religion. Scary isn't it. If we freaked out everytime there was an anti-christian/jewish article, cartoon etc we would all be protesting and destroying things.

What is it inherent in their faith outside of north america that makes them go ballistic? Is it a different form of the religion than that practiced here?

Lighten up muslims it doesn't reflect well on you.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear betsy,

I, for one, am curious as to what these cartoons are all about. I've not seen one yet.

I believe someone has posted a link to them on another thread. However,

If Muslims are saying it is blasphemous and offensive to them....I want to see for myself and form an opinion based on what I see.

You will not see what Muslims see. This is the point that a lot of people are missing. Depictions of Muhammed are considered 'idolatry', just as the Jews and Muslims see Christians as 'idol-worshippers' for venerating 'Christ on the Cross'.

Reminds me of a bit from Monty Python's Life of Brian, where a man was about to be stoned to death for uttering the name 'Jehovah'. Kooky, but to this day, if you read the writings of devout Jews (such as the "Ask the Rabbi' section of Israelnationalnews.com), they still cannot write the name 'God', it will always appear as 'G-d'.

[cybercoma]

Dear betsy,

I, for one, am curious as to what these cartoons are all about. I've not seen one yet.

I believe someone has posted a link to them on another thread. However,

If Muslims are saying it is blasphemous and offensive to them....I want to see for myself and form an opinion based on what I see.

You will not see what Muslims see. This is the point that a lot of people are missing. Depictions of Muhammed are considered 'idolatry', just as the Jews and Muslims see Christians as 'idol-worshippers' for venerating 'Christ on the Cross'.

Reminds me of a bit from Monty Python's Life of Brian, where a man was about to be stoned to death for uttering the name 'Jehovah'. Kooky, but to this day, if you read the writings of devout Jews (such as the "Ask the Rabbi' section of Israelnationalnews.com), they still cannot write the name 'God', it will always appear as 'G-d'.

Violence is inexcusable and not accepted in any religion. Regardless of me posting pics of their prophet, or them posting mock crucifixions. Free speech needs to be protected and violence should never be tolerated.

This all reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. Let's burn all the books so no one becomes offended. Leftist utopia.

If they don't want other countries depicting their prophet with a bomb for a turban, they need to stand up to the dictators who've blended politics and religion. Anywhere there is no democracy, leaders become corrupted by the power. In their region where religion is so entrenched in politics, these leaders have abused the prophet for their own means. If they don't like the rest of the world depicting muhammed with a bomb for a turban, perhaps they should do something about the way their dictators are ruling them. Perhaps they should stand up for the true definition of Islam, if any of them remember what it's about in the first place.

The problem is not the cartoon, the problem is what caused the cartoons.

[fixer1]

The publishing of the cartoons, is not freedom of speech or freedom of the press. These cartoons have already been published before and there drew a reaction from Muslims world wide, that has caused riots, property damage, as well as personal injury. So, since that fact is already known before these were printed, it no longer falls under the freedoms, we have in our Charter. The publications who have now published these cartoons, knowing fully well in advance that they are capable of causing the reactions, should now be held accountable for any and all harm that arises from them.

As the Supreme Court said before that your right to free speech does not extend to shouting fire in a crowded theater, so it also goes that it does not go to publishing things that will encite the same kind of reactions.

I amm not a German or Nazi, but if I did a cartoon if the editor of the Western Standard showing him as a Bath bar of ivory soap and his wife as normal sized bar of soap, and his children as little hand soaps, with the background of of the Stalages, and Hilter standing there with Guiring, saying " I finally have washed my hands with the problem of the Jews", Would that be fine as well. When I know in advance that this would not be taken well by the jewish people and they would be the first to have me charged with hate crime. So please be careful of what you do and say in print. As it can and will cause lots of feelings that can really back fire on you.

[Black Dog]

Do we need another thread on these goddamn cartoons? There's eight in the "Rest of the World" section, at least another eight in "Moral & Religious Issues" and two or three here. Surely we could have squeezed Ezra's pathetic plea for attention into one of those?

[betsy]

Well...you knew by the title this is about those cartoons. Nobody forced you to click in. Back off with your censorship.

[daniel]

My answer to the original question of this thread:

Then: when the cartoons were first published "yes" it was based on freedom of the press and free speech.

Now: Republishing after knowing the sentiments and sensitivity, it's not an argument for freedom anymore. Now, it's just plain provocation.

And I agree this thread should be in the morals and ethics forum.

[betsy]

And I agree this thread should be in the morals and ethics forum.

No. It doesn't have to be.

It's talked about and it's part politics!

[Black Dog]

Well...you knew by the title this is about those cartoons. Nobody forced you to click in. Back off with your censorship.

Or you could back off with your pointless thread proliferation.

[kimmy]

If Muslims are saying it is blasphemous and offensive to them....I want to see for myself and form an opinion based on what I see.

You will not see what Muslims see. This is the point that a lot of people are missing. Depictions of Muhammed are considered 'idolatry', just as the Jews and Muslims see Christians as 'idol-worshippers' for venerating 'Christ on the Cross'.

That might be true. However, the claim being made (and now being taken before Canadian courts, I believe) is that the cartoons are hate speech. The question of whether these cartoons are a legitimate exercise of free speech or whether they incite hatred is one that must be answered from a Canadian perspective, not from an Islamic perspective.

-k

[Black Dog]

Let's face it: this isn't about free speech anymore (if indeed it ever was). The heart of this controversy has been about opportunistic jackasses using one side or the other of this "controversy" for their own ends. And nothing illustrates this more perfectly than the childish "me too!"-ism of the little dingus Ezra Levant.

[kimmy]

Let's face it: this isn't about free speech anymore (if indeed it ever was). The heart of this controversy has been about opportunistic jackasses using one side or the other of this "controversy" for their own ends. And nothing illustrates this more perfectly than the childish "me too!"-ism of the little dingus Ezra Levant.

Well, Levant might indeed be an opportunistic dingus. But I believe that's somewhat beside the point.

First off, a question: have you seen the cartoons, Black Dog? Did you specifically look for them on the internet? I did. I know that many have. From what I've seen, most who weigh in on the subject have seen the cartoons (I'm amused at how many I've seen swear they saw the cartoons "only by accident.")

I looked for them. I wanted to know what the fuss was about. I wanted to know whether the cartoons were hateful *from a western perspective* (meaning, I wanted to know if they had editorial merit from the criteria that a western newspaper editor would use.) I know that a large number of people who have followed the controversy have done the same.

And I think there's an element of hypocrisy at work when we internet snobs, a large number of us having made the decision to search out this information to satisfy our own intellectual curiousity, presume to apply different standards to people who rely on print media.

Something I think that's been overlooked is the timeline.

The cartoons were published in Denmark on September 30, 2005.

Nothing happened in October.

Nothing happened in November.

Nothing happened in December.

Then in late January there's an uproar.

Why didn't anything happen for 3 and a half months?

Muslims in Denmark reacted to the cartoons, when they were first published, as citizens in a western democracy react to such things: they wrote letters and they demanded to speak with editors and politicians. This is about the same as Catholics react when some TV show or editorial cartoon upsets them, it seems to me.

Nothing happened with these cartoons until some conservative Muslims went to the middle east to provoke reaction. They showed off pictures that Jyllands-Posten never even published, such as the now infamous pig Mohammed drawing.

At the point that the cartoons became a controversy, continuing to try to keeps them under wraps does a disservice to everyone. For Muslims, the media's decision to the cartoons under wraps has allowed a small group with an agenda to greatly overstate the degree of offense that was done to their faith. For the rest of us, stifling discussion about the issue has allowed misinformation to grow. "They can't handle free speech" and "it's just cartoons... why are they so upset?" are two common perceptions building in our country about this.

Canadian Muslims can handle free speech. They'll respond to the cartoons as the Danish Muslims did, not as middle-eastern Muslims have.

-k

[sage]

Let's face it: this isn't about free speech anymore (if indeed it ever was). The heart of this controversy has been about opportunistic jackasses using one side or the other of this "controversy" for their own ends. And nothing illustrates this more perfectly than the childish "me too!"-ism of the little dingus Ezra Levant.

Let me get this straight: if Ezra publishes the cartoons, its "me too"ism?

If he doesn't publish, then what is it?

The only reason this is a story is because no other news outlet would touch this thing. That's why its about free speech.

[Black Dog]

Well, Levant might indeed be an opportunistic dingus. But I believe that's somewhat beside the point.

I disagree. I think the cartoons themselves are more or less beside the point.

Let me get this straight: if Ezra publishes the cartoons, its "me too"ism?

If he doesn't publish, then what is it?

Irrelevant. Whuich is what the Western Standard is and would continue to be if the opportunist in cheif didn't smell an opportunity to get his name out. that's what it boils down to: good old fashioned sensationalism.

The only reason this is a story is because no other news outlet would touch this thing. That's why its about free speech.

How so? Part of free speech is one has the freedom to decide what to say. No publication is obligated to print the cartoons because someone has declared it to be a grand gesture in defence of free speech.

[politika]

These arn't offensive at all, their is somthing called free speech. I am christian and if my god was diplicted in a cartoon equally offensive to the mahamad cartoons I woudlnt be out on the streets killing people. Nor would their be any apology of it either, these people just want our attention.

message to all people offended by these cartoons: FREE SPEECH get over it

[betsy]

Well...you knew by the title this is about those cartoons. Nobody forced you to click in. Back off with your censorship.

Or you could back off with your pointless thread proliferation.

If you find this topic pointless, then stay out of it! It's as simple as that. What's your problem?

Btw, are you the moderator?

[betsy]

Although I've yet to see these cartoons....I do believe that they're just being used to fuel anger towards the west. I think either Syria or Iran was even telling their people to go out and protest.

Btw, One placard from a protester had a caricature of a man wearing a turban made out of bomb...is that one of the cartoons?

If it's so blasphemous that they're not allowed to show any images of their prophet, then why was he waving and showing it around?

[August1991]

And I think there's an element of hypocrisy at work when we internet snobs, a large number of us having made the decision to search out this information to satisfy our own intellectual curiousity, presume to apply different standards to people who rely on print media.

-k

I think one reason this controversy has attracted so much attention in the West is because of the hypocrisy it has inspired. I too Kimmy have been surprised by the number of people who have seen these cartoons yet think it is "wrong" to publish them. The head of the CBC said there was no need to broadcast the cartoons since the images were freely available on the Internet. (Huh?)

The latest bit of hypocrisy is Warren Kinsella claiming that people should use words and images carefully since they can lead to dangerous emotions.

Let's face it: this isn't about free speech anymore (if indeed it ever was). The heart of this controversy has been about opportunistic jackasses using one side or the other of this "controversy" for their own ends. And nothing illustrates this more perfectly than the childish "me too!"-ism of the little dingus Ezra Levant.

BD, it is ironic (hypocritical?) of you to accuse someone of using an event to further an agenda. To varying degrees, we are all involved in spin and agendas. Ultimately, that's how we find the "truth". Alone in Canada, both Le Devoir and the Western Standard published these cartoons. Do you accuse Le Devoir of being an "opportunistic jackass"?

If you find this topic pointless, then stay out of it! It's as simple as that. What's your problem?

Btw, are you the moderator?

I agree with BD on this. Betsy, we've got six zillion threads started on this topic. Why did you start another one? In the future, try to respond within an existing thread. We all share the same forum.