Controversial Cartoons

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear betsy,

I must concur with Black Dog and August1991, there are too many threads on this one topic already. Creating multiple threads of the same topic is against forum rules (as it could be interpreted as 'flooding' or 'trolling'), I do believe, unless it was by accident (which I have done in the past, while trying to edit a new topic) or if you are attempting to argue some other, relevant point not covered in the original thread. In this case, I could possibly see how there might be two, religious and legal, but certainly not the volume we have had thus far.

[Black Dog]

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"?

Everyone has an agenda, so having an agenda isn't in and of itself a bad thing. But knowing what the agenda is makes situations liek this a little easier to understand. Knowing the Western Standard and Ezra Levant's idealogical positions and general attitude vis a vis Muslims, I can feel safe in my assumption that their descision is less a statement of press freedom as it is a statement along the lines of "Nyah nyah nyah nyah!" Now you raise an interesting point about Le Devoir, and I think the distinction is in the timing (see my comment about "me-too"ism). I acknowledge all this may be colored by my knowledge of Levant's work and his personality (a loathsome troll IMO), but I think the W.S. is a Johnny-come-lately. But why don't we take this to one of the other gillion threads on the subject. See ya!

[cybercoma]

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.

Your thinking supports the terrorists around the world.

When they're on Al-Jazeera threatening to decapitate an innocent US citizen, do you give them what they want because of the threat of violence?

The cartoons did not cause riots, death and destruction. Irresponsible people who don't know what diplomacy is caused riots, death and destruction.

[cybercoma]

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

Do people who follow the prophet strap bombs to themselves and murder innocents in a blaze of suicidal glory in his name? As soon as Islam lashes out against these things, they won't be viewed as such. Perhaps instead of causing MORE death and violence, they should do some soul searching and figure out why western societies view them this way.

[geoffrey]

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.

Thats not illegal. The Islamic council is trying to punish Levant to publishing materials, attempting to press charges.

Opportunism isn't a crime.

There is no hate being proliferated by Levant.

[Black Dog]

Do people who follow the prophet strap bombs to themselves and murder innocents in a blaze of suicidal glory in his name? As soon as Islam lashes out against these things, they won't be viewed as such. Perhaps instead of causing MORE death and violence, they should do some soul searching and figure out why western societies view them this way.

Why is it whenever "they" do soemthing it's "their" job (all 1.2 billion of them, I assume) to do some soul searching, but any sugestion that "we" should consider "our" role (for example, what role western post colonial policies played in the rise of radical Islam) is sneered at?

Thats not illegal. The Islamic council is trying to punish Levant to publishing materials, attempting to press charges.

Opportunism isn't a crime.

There is no hate being proliferated by Levant.

According to the reports I've read, this would be the third time someone tried to lay charges for printing the cartoons. All previous attempts were unsuccesful, so I doubt the Calgary folks will have better luck.

As for Levant, I have no doubt he's doing this for publicity for his rag and that's about all.

[geoffrey]

According to the reports I've read, this would be the third time someone tried to lay charges for printing the cartoons. All previous attempts were unsuccesful, so I doubt the Calgary folks will have better luck.

As for Levant, I have no doubt he's doing this for publicity for his rag and that's about all.

It's actually not a bad read, I do take it with as much crediability as something like Macleans though!

There's no hate here, thats the problem. I really don't see the issue with printing them. Sure he's being opportunistic, but so is every paper when they lead with the 'Gretzy fingered by Wiretaps' headlines or 'Gomery to deliver crushing blow' things along those lines.

[Black Dog]

It's actually not a bad read, I do take it with as much crediability as something like Macleans though!

There's no hate here, thats the problem. I really don't see the issue with printing them. Sure he's being opportunistic, but so is every paper when they lead with the 'Gretzy fingered by Wiretaps' headlines or 'Gomery to deliver crushing blow' things along those lines.

I certainly said nothing about "hate". As for your analogy: no one has rioted over "Operation Slapshot". Again, it's worth looking at the context: Levant's magazine is a far-right magazine, known for printing people like Mark Steyn who harbour anti-Islam views. Basically, Levant is printing the cartoons to stir up mor controversy and spark ill-will among Canadian Muslims in order to show that the Western Standars has been right about "those people" all along.

[geoffrey]

It's actually not a bad read, I do take it with as much crediability as something like Macleans though!

There's no hate here, thats the problem. I really don't see the issue with printing them. Sure he's being opportunistic, but so is every paper when they lead with the 'Gretzy fingered by Wiretaps' headlines or 'Gomery to deliver crushing blow' things along those lines.

I certainly said nothing about "hate". As for your analogy: no one has rioted over "Operation Slapshot". Again, it's worth looking at the context: Levant's magazine is a far-right magazine, known for printing people like Mark Steyn who harbour anti-Islam views. Basically, Levant is printing the cartoons to stir up mor controversy and spark ill-will among Canadian Muslims in order to show that the Western Standars has been right about "those people" all along.

But we shouldn't prevent someone (or discourage them) from publishing something within the law, because of other people's irresponsible actions in response.

Violence can't be allowed to pressure people into self-censorship.

[Black Dog]

But we shouldn't prevent someone (or discourage them) from publishing something within the law, because of other people's irresponsible actions in response.

Violence can't be allowed to pressure people into self-censorship.

True. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking his decison was a brave gesture of defiance, or a blow for freedom of speech. Call it what it is: a deliberately provocative bit of grandstanding for a magazine that few people have heard of and even fewer have ever bothered to read.

[geoffrey]

But we shouldn't prevent someone (or discourage them) from publishing something within the law, because of other people's irresponsible actions in response.

Violence can't be allowed to pressure people into self-censorship.

True. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking his decison was a brave gesture of defiance, or a blow for freedom of speech. Call it what it is: a deliberately provocative bit of grandstanding for a magazine that few people have heard of and even fewer have ever bothered to read.

True, I don't disagree.

[betsy]

Dear betsy,

I must concur with Black Dog and August1991, there are too many threads on this one topic already. Creating multiple threads of the same topic is against forum rules (as it could be interpreted as 'flooding' or 'trolling'), I do believe, unless it was by accident (which I have done in the past, while trying to edit a new topic) or if you are attempting to argue some other, relevant point not covered in the original thread. In this case, I could possibly see how there might be two, religious and legal, but certainly not the volume we have had thus far.

August and Theolonius,

I've scrolled back down and have not seen one about this issue. Or probably I've missed it. Actually I even thought the forum is avoiding this issue.

I hardly go to the other areas in the forum since most of the time I don't have enough time to sit and pore through.

I just resent the tone of Black Dog. One can point out something without being unnecessarily rude.

[cybercoma]

Do people who follow the prophet strap bombs to themselves and murder innocents in a blaze of suicidal glory in his name? As soon as Islam lashes out against these things, they won't be viewed as such. Perhaps instead of causing MORE death and violence, they should do some soul searching and figure out why western societies view them this way.

Why is it whenever "they" do soemthing it's "their" job (all 1.2 billion of them, I assume) to do some soul searching, but any sugestion that "we" should consider "our" role (for example, what role western post colonial policies played in the rise of radical Islam) is sneered at?

Because civilized nations don't negotiate with murderers. You don't see other nations kidnapping innocent civilians and decapitating them, flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people or blowing up buses. And until the radical muslims learn how to use diplomacy they will never be heard. Justifying their actions makes you no better than the murderers who think killing innocent people is an acceptable form of protest.

[Argus]

Do people who follow the prophet strap bombs to themselves and murder innocents in a blaze of suicidal glory in his name? As soon as Islam lashes out against these things, they won't be viewed as such. Perhaps instead of causing MORE death and violence, they should do some soul searching and figure out why western societies view them this way.

Why is it whenever "they" do soemthing it's "their" job (all 1.2 billion of them, I assume) to do some soul searching, but any sugestion that "we" should consider "our" role (for example, what role western post colonial policies played in the rise of radical Islam) is sneered at?

Because it's pointless. Agonizing over the fact our ancestors were stronger and more succesful than theirs serves no purpose. I dislike the silly liberal habit of going on white guilt trips whenever some ethnic group or other is doing something bad. Somehow, somewhen, we must be to blame! Why? Because White people are always to blame! The history of Islam is a violent, brutal, vicious, murderous one. Look it up some time. Examine how Islam was spread, how many were murdered in its name. Look at what the Muslims did to India during their conquest there. If nothing else that ought to make you stop complaining about our colonialism, for we were benign to the point of saintliness compared to how the Muslims treated the Hindus there, or how they treated other peoples in conquered lands. Even the Spanish conquistadors in south america were as sweet as a band of girl scouts compared to how the Muslims treated conquered peoples.

[cybercoma]

Two wrongs certainly don't make a right, as is always said.

The current problem is violent and murderous Islamic nations. Liberal justifiers can claim it's only a fraction of Islam that is radical, but it just so happens that "fraction" controls the governments of these nations. It just so happens that all these radical groups are tied tightly to politics in the region and they all carry their own militias.

It's so tiring to hear people making excuses for groups that would murder innocent civilians to get their points across. As long as they continue to do this, no civilized nation will negotiate with them or pander to their "concerns". As long as they continue to be barbaric they will be treated as such.

[August1991]

But let's not delude ourselves into thinking his decison was a brave gesture of defiance, or a blow for freedom of speech. Call it what it is: a deliberately provocative bit of grandstanding for a magazine that few people have heard of and even fewer have ever bothered to read.

Anybody in the public spotlight is grandstanding to a degree. Disagree with this guy if you want, but don't criticize his tactics when others do the same.

The current problem is violent and murderous Islamic nations.

Uh, no. The Hell's Angels threatened jury members and killed a prison guard, but I don't think you would argue that everyone in Quebec is violent and murderous. True, we in the West are being intimidated. Is this the most serious problem we face? I don't think so.

----

I was surprised when an Iranian newspaper started a contest about Holocaust denial articles. Scientific tests tend to support the mocking of religious figures. Scientific tests do not support denials of the Holocaust. It is this trust in science that is at the heart of the "current problem".

By and large, I think it is correct to say that God did not speak to some guy in the Saudi desert over one thousand years ago. I am even more certain in stating that if God did speak to this guy, the conversations were not recorded accurately. Why do I say that? Because I believe in the scientific method.

IMV, we are dealing with superstitious people who believe that God not only exists, but God spoke in Arabic to a man and God's words were recorded verbatim. If you have done Canadian K-12 and actually learned something, you know that - in the immortal words of BD - anyone who believes this is "not playing with a fulldeck".

The ordinary, white born-here Canadian, French or English speaking, had an ancestor (going back about three generations, Kimmy-style), who was superstitious but probably pragmatic. With a Middle-Eastern, fatalistic, passionate twist, we are dealing with such superstition and such pragmatism in the 21st century. This is the "current problem".

[On balance, I'd play to the pragmatism. Galileo defeated the Catholic Church by explaining why Mars' oppositions and retrogrades occur. Medieval Churches are large, wide and heavy. More usefully, Galileo showed how to build tall churches at lower cost. Steyn calls this 'backing the swift horse.']

Two stories

Years ago, young & naive, I was flying in an airplane in the Middle East, sitting beside a British expat/engineer who was working in Saudi. I recall he said to me: "Imagine if we gave Henry VIII $100 billion of modern money. What would he buy? That's Saudi Arabia."

Years later, still young & naive, I was in Saudi Arabia in conversation with a Nova Scotian nurse working at a Riyadh hospital. Her patients, she explained, all had burns on their backs because, before coming to the Western doctors, the patients first went to traditional doctors for treatment. The patients pragmatically put their eggs in different baskets.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Anybody in the public spotlight is grandstanding to a degree. Disagree with this guy if you want, but don't criticize his tactics when others do the same.

To be fair, I believe Black Dog does try to criticize them all. Perhaps it is true that he has a special dislike of Levant, but I don't see it as hypocritical in Black Dog's case.

With a Middle-Eastern, fatalistic, passionate twist, we are dealing with such superstition and such pragmatism in the 21st century. This is the "current problem".

I have to agree here, but the current solution seems to be the notion that the Muslims need to be convinced that God isn't that gosh-darned important. That won't happen soon.

As a pragmatist, I see some bad times ahead.

[Black Dog]

Because civilized nations don't negotiate with murderers. You don't see other nations kidnapping innocent civilians and decapitating them, flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people or blowing up buses. And until the radical muslims learn how to use diplomacy they will never be heard. Justifying their actions makes you no better than the murderers who think killing innocent people is an acceptable form of protest.

No, "civilized" nations have high-tech fighter bombers and JDAMs to do their dirty work (which is always written of as "collateral damage").

Because it's pointless. Agonizing over the fact our ancestors were stronger and more succesful than theirs serves no purpose. I dislike the silly liberal habit of going on white guilt trips whenever some ethnic group or other is doing something bad. Somehow, somewhen, we must be to blame! Why? Because White people are always to blame! The history of Islam is a violent, brutal, vicious, murderous one. Look it up some time. Examine how Islam was spread, how many were murdered in its name. Look at what the Muslims did to India during their conquest there. If nothing else that ought to make you stop complaining about our colonialism, for we were benign to the point of saintliness compared to how the Muslims treated the Hindus there, or how they treated other peoples in conquered lands. Even the Spanish conquistadors in south america were as sweet as a band of girl scouts compared to how the Muslims treated conquered peoples.

It's pretty hypocritical to, on the one hand, say the actions of white folks from centuries past are above reproach while constantly bringing up the ancient history of Islam on the other. Also: what part of "post-colonial" don't you understand? I wasn't talking about the conquistidors or the Crusades, but the last 50, 60 years.

The current problem is violent and murderous Islamic nations. Liberal justifiers can claim it's only a fraction of Islam that is radical, but it just so happens that "fraction" controls the governments of these nations. It just so happens that all these radical groups are tied tightly to politics in the region and they all carry their own militias.

Except not all Muslim nations have Muslim regimes. For example, Pakistan, Syria and Egypt are run by secular military dictatorships. Afghanistan and Iraq are allegedly pro-western democracies, as is Indonesia.

[Army Guy]

I agree with Black dog this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech, Here in Canada it is now being used for profit and recongition and to provoke futher action,thats it.

But we shouldn't prevent someone (or discourage them) from publishing something within the law, because of other people's irresponsible actions in response

Violence can't be allowed to pressure people into self-censorship.

We do this everday, which is why we use common sense when using our freedom of speech. Tell an over wieght women She's a cow, have a complete stranger comment on your wife or girlfriends breasts while your standing next to her. These examples would be an irresponsible use of my freedoms of speech, because they would proably provoke a violent response either verbal or punch in the face. But then again i knew that before hand, what the proable outcome would be.

So while i'm wiping the blood from my nose and watching you being arrested for assualt ,who's right here Me for exericising my freedom of speech and not exericising common sense or you for finding the comment offensive and punching me in the face.

[fixer1]

I agree with Black dog this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech, Here in Canada it is now being used for profit and recongition and to provoke futher action,thats it.

But we shouldn't prevent someone (or discourage them) from publishing something within the law, because of other people's irresponsible actions in response

Violence can't be allowed to pressure people into self-censorship.

We do this everday, which is why we use common sense when using our freedom of speech. Tell an over wieght women She's a cow, have a complete stranger comment on your wife or girlfriends breasts while your standing next to her. These examples would be an irresponsible use of my freedoms of speech, because they would proably provoke a violent response either verbal or punch in the face. But then again i knew that before hand, what the proable outcome would be.

So while i'm wiping the blood from my nose and watching you being arrested for assualt ,who's right here Me for exericising my freedom of speech and not exericising common sense or you for finding the comment offensive and punching me in the face.

This is why we also have many levels of assault to charge one with. The Aggravated assault that you have displayed here as an example would have a large bearing on the sentence given the person charged. It probably would get a absolute discharge, by most judges no a days.

[betsy]

We do this everday, which is why we use common sense when using our freedom of speech. Tell an over wieght women She's a cow, have a complete stranger comment on your wife or girlfriends breasts while your standing next to her. These examples would be an irresponsible use of my freedoms of speech, because they would proably provoke a violent response either verbal or punch in the face. But then again i knew that before hand, what the proable outcome would be.

So while i'm wiping the blood from my nose and watching you being arrested for assualt ,who's right here Me for exericising my freedom of speech and not exericising common sense or you for finding the comment offensive and punching me in the face.

In this particular scenario you gave, both of you are wrong! But the one who punched you is even worse! He should've just let your comment slide and let common sense prevail...and just assumed something's wrong with your marbles. After all, there was no real harm done, right?

Do we punch anyone who give us a finger when we're driving out there?

[Hicksey]

What is all the outrage? Its a damned cartoon and nothing more.

What I think Muslims should be more concerned about is how they got such a reputation in the first place, and how it is they can eradicate themselves of it.

Hint: more destruction and killing is not the answer.

[Army Guy]

fixer1

This is why we also have many levels of assault to charge one with. The Aggravated assault that you have displayed here as an example would have a large bearing on the sentence given the person charged. It probably would get a absolute discharge, by most judges no a days.

My piont here is that my common sense tells me that by me exericising my freedoms of speech do have consquences and can draw a violent reaction. i knew all that before the remarks were said, but said them anyways and yet now i'm hiding being my freedom of speech to prove i'm justified in what i said. that i have the right to freedom of speech and can say what ever comes to mind regardless of consquences or outcome.

Most grown-ups know the limitations to thier freedoms and exericise them accordingly, this was not the case with the media.

[Hicksey]

fixer1

This is why we also have many levels of assault to charge one with. The Aggravated assault that you have displayed here as an example would have a large bearing on the sentence given the person charged. It probably would get a absolute discharge, by most judges no a days.

My piont here is that my common sense tells me that by me exericising my freedoms of speech do have consquences and can draw a violent reaction. i knew all that before the remarks were said, but said them anyways and yet now i'm hiding being my freedom of speech to prove i'm justified in what i said. that i have the right to freedom of speech and can say what ever comes to mind regardless of consquences or outcome.

Most grown-ups know the limitations to thier freedoms and exericise them accordingly, this was not the case with the media.

My views get trampled on every day by the media and you don't see me trashing buildings and hurting people. Its called self-restraint I believe. Although I get really pissed seeing my beliefs pissed on, I know that violence does nothing to change that except make me look more radical than I am accused of being already.

Self-restraint with a little side of think before you act on the side is in order here.

[kimmy]

I think this whole issue has shown that many in Canada still have a very patronizing attitude toward Canada's Muslim population. People seem to have the opinion that publishing the cartoons in Canada is "not responsible" because it will result in the same sort of chaos that has occured in Beirut. Do people really have such a low opinion of Canadian Muslims?

Keep in mind that when the cartoons were published in Denmark, Danish Muslims didn't react violently. They responded to the situation using the mechanisms available to citizens in a western democracy.

And keep in mind that the situation in the middle east has been inflamed by people with an agenda. Extremists went on tour of the middle east to provoke outrage over the situation using cartoons that were never published in Denmark.

This article contains allegations that the situation has been inflamed for political advantage by Muslims:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_fatah/20060210.html

-an Egyptian journalist says: "Muslim governments who spearheaded the campaign — led by Egypt — felt this was an easy way to burnish their Islamic credentials at a time when domestic Islamists are stronger than they have been in many years."

-a Lebanese official says that most of the people connected with rioting in Beirut were actually Syrians, and claims that known Syrian agents were involved in inciting the violence. The goal, he says, was to create instability in Lebanon to justify a Syrian military presence.

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.

-k