Controversial Cartoons

[Army Guy]

I don't know if this was intended for me or not. But i'll respond anyways.

I think that the Canadian muslims are handling this subject in a Canadian way. The way that most Canadians would handle it. They have told us that they find the cartoons offensive and the canadian media with a few exceptions have listened and respected thier rights as Canadians and have not printed the cartoons. How does this infringe on our freedom of speech.

Which do you think is more logical? That Canadian Muslims will respond like Danish Muslims did, or that Canadian Muslims will respond like Middle Eastern Muslims did?

Canadian Muslims will handle this just fine. They'll be annoyed, just as Catholics or other religious groups are when their religion is criticized or portrayed poorly in the media, and they'll respond in the same way.

This attitude among lefty-types that the cartoons mustn't be published because the Muslims will be provoked is not based on tolerance or openmindedness. It's actually based on the same patronizing belief that "they can't handle free speech" that anti-muslim types hold.

My piont here is that this is not about freedom of speech but respecting another culture. they have let us know that they have crossed the line...(be it thru violence or not they have made it clear that it is offensive)

It is our turn to say OK ,sorry won't happen again...but that is not happening because it does not sell papers

It's not about provoking the muslims but doing what is right.

[kimmy]

I don't know if this was intended for me or not. But i'll respond anyways.

No, that wasn't directed specifically at you.

I am skeptical of Jyllands Posten's motives in commissioning the cartoons in the first place.

I just feel that trying to "protect" Muslims from these cartoons is patronizing. It actually reinforces the prejudices people already have: Jews and Christians can handle this stuff, but Muslims have to be protected from it because... well, why, exactly? Is it true that Muslims can't handle freedom? I don't think it's true. I don't think Muslims need to be protected from this. I think it's patronizing and condescending to think otherwise.

I think that the Canadian muslims are handling this subject in a Canadian way. The way that most Canadians would handle it. They have told us that they find the cartoons offensive and the canadian media with a few exceptions have listened and respected thier rights as Canadians and have not printed the cartoons. How does this infringe on our freedom of speech.

I'm a little leery of the way you've phrased this: "the media ...have listened and respected their rights". The "right" to not be offended is *not* a right that people have in our society. This might be just semantics, and maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but it's an important point in my opinion.

The media has not respected their *rights*, they've respected their *feelings*. And I don't want the media making decisions about how to cover a story based on whether peoples' feelings might be hurt.

In this case, it's a minor point because seeing the cartoons is arguably not vital to an understanding of the story. You can form your own opinion of this issue, provided you're comfortable with accepting someone else's opinion of whether the cartoons 'depict' Mohammed or 'lampoon' him, as various news outlets have characterized this. (I again point out that while many of us on the internet have had the opportunity to decide for outselves whether Mohammed has been 'depicted' or 'lampooned', very few who rely on conventional media have had the opportunity to decide for themselves. Does that seem fair? Are we who get our news from our computer better equipped to make these decisions than those who get their news from a newspaper or TV? I digress.)

In this case, it's not that big of a deal. But what if the media made all its decisions based on whether peoples' feelings might be hurt? How would you feel if the media decided to not cover Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, because the media felt that it might hurt the feelings of Canadian Jews? Or if they didn't bother to report on that whole pedophile priests debacle because it might make Catholics feel bad?

That wouldn't be acceptible. Not in my view.

Is the same thing happening here? No major media outlet has published the cartoons. I see these possibilities:

--they decided it was the proper editorial decision... or,

--they were afraid (not necessarily of bombs. more likely of controversy, bad publicity, and maybe legal action.)

And while I'm sure that most media outlets will *say* that they didn't publish the cartoons because it was the proper editorial decision. However, I'm not convinced that it was such a clear-cut decision. I strongly suspect that fear-- of controversy, of bad publicity, of possible legal action-- played a role.

My piont here is that this is not about freedom of speech but respecting another culture. they have let us know that they have crossed the line...(be it thru violence or not they have made it clear that it is offensive)

It is our turn to say OK ,sorry won't happen again...but that is not happening because it does not sell papers

It's not about provoking the muslims but doing what is right.

"sorry, won't happen again"? We simply can't make such a promise. Because there *will* be a next time-- some Imam will say something controversial, or some idiot will do something that brings unwanted attention to the whole Muslim community, and the press *will* be expected to cover it, and some Muslims' feelings *will* get hurt.

-k

[Black Dog]

"sorry, won't happen again"? We simply can't make such a promise. Because there *will* be a next time-- some Imam will say something controversial, or some idiot will do something that brings unwanted attention to the whole Muslim community, and the press *will* be expected to cover it, and some Muslims' feelings *will* get hurt.

And then, as now, the media will ignore the moderate voices within the Muslim community and focus on the wingnuts, while those with an ax to grind against Islam will gleefuly seize on those wingnuts as evidence of the bankruptcy of Islam as a whole.

This article by mid-east expert Juan Cole makes some good points.

Muslim touchiness about Western insults to the prophet Mohammed must be understood in historical context. Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence, and most colonial masters and their helpmeets among the missionaries were not shy about letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was. The colonized still smart from the notorious signs outside European clubs in the colonial era, such as the one in Calcutta that said, "Dogs and Indians not allowed."

Indeed, the same themes of Aryan superiority and Semitic backwardness in the European "scientific racism" of the 19th and early 20th centuries that led to the Holocaust against the Jews also often colored the language of colonial administrators in places like Algeria about their subjects. A caricature of a Semitic prophet like Mohammed with a bomb in his turban replicates these racist themes of a century and a half ago, wherein Semites were depicted as violent and irrational and therefore as needing a firm white colonial master for their own good.

And

But the decades since independence have also seen increased conflict between the often Westernized elites in Muslim societies and the traditional Muslim middle and working classes. (See Mark MacNamara's report from Morocco.) In several countries, most notably Egypt, the ruling elites took a hard line on the cartoons in an attempt to cover their flanks from the religious right.

[Spike22]

What ever happened to being sensitive to one another? What happened to common sense and respecting peoples feelings. Does anyone nowdays look at the impact their words, pictures, actions etc might have on them. Let us all be respectful and ethical in our deeds and actions after all we are only here for a short period of time and we should all strive to make this world a more harmonious place to live.

[Black Dog]

If there was ever any doubt about Levant's intentions being purely commercial, then the e-mail the Western Standard sent out today surely dispells them:

We believe that reprinting the cartoons is essential to properly telling that news story, which is why we did it. We also published them as a symbol of our freedom of the press, and in defiance of those around the world who would censor us through threats of violence.

I've never been more proud of our magazine.

Not everyone is happy with us, of course. A Calgary Muslim leader has reported us to the police, trying to get them to charge me with hate crimes. He has also filed a complaint against us with the human rights commission on the same grounds. Ironically, he has called our freedom of the press "intellectual terrorism".

Those are nuisance suits, of course. But the idea is to cost us money and time, break our spirit, erode our freedom of speech, and teach a lesson to all other media: that anyone who doesn't censor themselves will be made to wish they did.

The threats are working. Already, many Canadian magazine retailers who normally carry the Western Standard have caved in, announcing -- even before they see our new issue -- that they won't put us on their shelves. Again, the purpose of the censors is obvious: hurt our magazine economically, and make an example of us as a warning to all other media.

That's why I'm writing to you today: to ask for your help. Please do three things:

1. Let me know how you feel.

If you support our magazine's decision, let me know. Send me an e-mail to [email protected] and I'll share it with the rest of our staff, to help buoy their spirits as we face this hurricane, to let them know we're not alone.

2. Encourage your local retailer to stock the Western Standard

Magazine retailers need to know that you value freedom of the press and your freedom to make up your own mind, and to not be censored by them or anyone else. Ask them to stock the magazine, or even to order it in just for you. You'll not only help us survive the boycott, but you'll put some steel in the spine of your local retailer.

3. Help us out directly.

If you're not yet a subscriber, now's the time to sign up -- a subscription is 37% cheaper than buying the magazine at the newsstand, and the money goes directly to us. If you're already a subscriber, consider renewing your subscription today, or extending your subscription, or even joining one of our clubs for enthusiasts by becoming a Sustaining Subscriber or a member of the Publisher's Circle.

You can find out more and do all of that right online, at xxxxxxxxxxxx

It's fast, easy and secure -- and it helps us stay strong, and keep growing.

Freedom isn't free. It costs $75 for a one year subscription.

[Black Dog]

What ever happened to being sensitive to one another? What happened to common sense and respecting peoples feelings. Does anyone nowdays look at the impact their words, pictures, actions etc might have on them. Let us all be respectful and ethical in our deeds and actions after all we are only here for a short period of time and we should all strive to make this world a more harmonious place to live.

Who the hell are you and what have you done with the real Spike?

[Army Guy]

kimmy:

I just feel that trying to "protect" Muslims from these cartoons is patronizing. It actually reinforces the prejudices people already have: Jews and Christians can handle this stuff, but Muslims have to be protected from it because... well, why, exactly? Is it true that Muslims can't handle freedom? I don't think it's true. I don't think Muslims need to be protected from this. I think it's patronizing and condescending to think otherwise

I don't see it as protecting anyone, i see it as showing respect and using common sense. We already know what thier (muslims) reaction is going to be, they have already told us it is offensive. This situation could be compared to calling a African American the N word to thier face, we know already it is an offensive remark and most people refrain from using it because of respect, or common sense.

Not all jews or christians can handle this stuff, as history will show us. It's not about protecting anyone it's about showing respect and using our common sense.

I'm a little leery of the way you've phrased this: "the media ...have listened and respected their rights". The "right" to not be offended is *not* a right that people have in our society. This might be just semantics, and maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but it's an important point in my opinion.

Actually it is a right, it is a form of harassment and the federal government definition for harassment is what ever an individual perceices to be offensive. Which as you can see by the definition can encompass just about anything. I can't speak for any other Goverment dept, but here in the military it has a major impact to the piont they have manitory harassment, ethics, lectures for all personal both military and civilian, and a 2 week course for harassment advisors.

The media has not respected their *rights*, they've respected their *feelings*. And I don't want the media making decisions about how to cover a story based on whether peoples' feelings might be hurt

Again as i stated before it is a right, however i will agree with you the news should be covered, but it should be done with common sense and respect. And that can be done with out being offensive.

"sorry, won't happen again"? We simply can't make such a promise. Because there *will* be a next time-- some Imam will say something controversial, or some idiot will do something that brings unwanted attention to the whole Muslim community, and the press *will* be expected to cover it, and some Muslims' feelings *will* get hurt.

You make it sound like we can't cover the news with out being offensive, i think that was already proven with the Canadain media coverage of the cartoons. or do we really need to see them, do we need to see beheadings, or bannana stuck in an anus to actually get the real feel of the news. or can we use common sense and respect and still get our piont across.

[Spike22]

What ever happened to being sensitive to one another? What happened to common sense and respecting peoples feelings. Does anyone nowdays look at the impact their words, pictures, actions etc might have on them. Let us all be respectful and ethical in our deeds and actions after all we are only here for a short period of time and we should all strive to make this world a more harmonious place to live.

Who the hell are you and what have you done with the real Spike?

He has been sent away for a retreat at the Intergalactic House of Fruitcakes. I am filling in for him until his return to earth from the mothership.

Spikette21

[cybercoma]

kimmy is so awesome.

[betsy]

If there was ever any doubt about Levant's intentions being purely commercial, then the e-mail the Western Standard sent out today surely dispells them:

We believe that reprinting the cartoons is essential to properly telling that news story, which is why we did it. We also published them as a symbol of our freedom of the press, and in defiance of those around the world who would censor us through threats of violence.

I've never been more proud of our magazine.

Not everyone is happy with us, of course. A Calgary Muslim leader has reported us to the police, trying to get them to charge me with hate crimes. He has also filed a complaint against us with the human rights commission on the same grounds. Ironically, he has called our freedom of the press "intellectual terrorism".

Those are nuisance suits, of course. But the idea is to cost us money and time, break our spirit, erode our freedom of speech, and teach a lesson to all other media: that anyone who doesn't censor themselves will be made to wish they did.

The threats are working. Already, many Canadian magazine retailers who normally carry the Western Standard have caved in, announcing -- even before they see our new issue -- that they won't put us on their shelves. Again, the purpose of the censors is obvious: hurt our magazine economically, and make an example of us as a warning to all other media.

That's why I'm writing to you today: to ask for your help. Please do three things:

1. Let me know how you feel.

If you support our magazine's decision, let me know. Send me an e-mail to [email protected] and I'll share it with the rest of our staff, to help buoy their spirits as we face this hurricane, to let them know we're not alone.

2. Encourage your local retailer to stock the Western Standard

Magazine retailers need to know that you value freedom of the press and your freedom to make up your own mind, and to not be censored by them or anyone else. Ask them to stock the magazine, or even to order it in just for you. You'll not only help us survive the boycott, but you'll put some steel in the spine of your local retailer.

3. Help us out directly.

If you're not yet a subscriber, now's the time to sign up -- a subscription is 37% cheaper than buying the magazine at the newsstand, and the money goes directly to us. If you're already a subscriber, consider renewing your subscription today, or extending your subscription, or even joining one of our clubs for enthusiasts by becoming a Sustaining Subscriber or a member of the Publisher's Circle.

You can find out more and do all of that right online, at xxxxxxxxxxxx

It's fast, easy and secure -- and it helps us stay strong, and keep growing.

Freedom isn't free. It costs $75 for a one year subscription.

Thanks for posting this. I'll e-mail them pronto!

[Hicksey]

Is it just me, or is the whole answer to this being presented here--in its most simplified terms--"... if we were only nicer to them this wouldn't have happened ..."

The reality of the world today that isn't being presented here is that they got that reputation somehow. I think the idiots that think its right to run around destroying embassies and inciting general bedlam and chaos over a cartoon aren't just exastorbatiing the situation, but also completely missing the point the cartoon made. These people must not understand that their behavior in protest of the cartoon is why they have the reputation about the world that would give someone the idea to make such a cartoon in the first place.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for them. Civilized people engage in diplomacy or debate to solve their problems. Even "warmonger" Bush waited 13 years and 17 UN resolutions before using violence. These people need to learn how to function within the world like the rest of us do. Organized peaceful protest is one thing, but to destroy countries embassies cannot and should not be tolerated in any way. Allowing this to continue is to tell people that should someone insult you, it is OK to go and burn their home down.

[Argus]

What ever happened to being sensitive to one another? What happened to common sense and respecting peoples feelings. Does anyone nowdays look at the impact their words, pictures, actions etc might have on them. Let us all be respectful and ethical in our deeds and actions after all we are only here for a short period of time and we should all strive to make this world a more harmonious place to live.

And if you don't be properly sensitive and caring and respectful, the way I want, well then, I'll kill you.

[quinton]

Religion is at the root of evil.

That's all I have to say.

Check out the documentary by Professor Richard Dawkins to see how religion is a disease.

[geoffrey]

Religion is at the root of evil.

That's all I have to say.

Check out the documentary by Professor Richard Dawkins to see how religion is a disease.

Dawkins is a complete failure. His attacks on religion have discredited all of his other work in biology. The guy's got an agenda, and you can't do science if you start with an agenda...

Thats what I have to say about that.