PM is distressed

[geoffrey]

Ezra isn't inciting violence, he's publishing information that has otherwise been limited from the public domain.

They're all over the net. Hardly limited.

Not everyone has access to the internet. Everyone can walk into a Chapters and read the Standards... oh wait, nope, Chapters banned that already! Go Queen of censorship Heather Reisman.

So really, if you don't have the internet, or a subscription to the Standard, your simply out of luck, you don't deserve to see the news!

[Leafless]

Canuck E Stan

You wrote- " Why all of a sudden is printing cartoon pictures that cause riots and death around the world a freedom of the speech issue."

When someone in the media is told by someone else that you cannot print those cartoons for whatever reason, the reply "sorry-this news item is a free speech issue and I don't think your in the positon in my country to force me to do otherwise" is the most logical response to someone attempting censorship.

But to go into further detail and what is not debated freely 'is why were these cartoons published originally."

I would ask you what would serve with the least prejudice towards Islam in the form of protest against terrorism?

(1) Graphic pictures of a hostage taker slashing the throat of a victim in front of cameras?

(2) A suicide bomber that blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?

(3) Cartoons illustrating the senselessness of these acts with direction as to the source concerning these acts and or what type of gratification from human self destruction can possibly be acheived.

Or in your opinion are you not allowed or permitted to protest period?

[newbie]

Not everyone has access to the internet. Everyone can walk into a Chapters and read the Standards... oh wait, nope, Chapters banned that already! Go Queen of censorship Heather Reisman.

So really, if you don't have the internet, or a subscription to the Standard, your simply out of luck, you don't deserve to see the news!

No to beat this to death, but EVERYONE has a friend with the net, and most if not all libraries have the net. If you want to see them bad enough, it ain't hard.

[Argus]

Good for the Western Standard brave enough to keep Canadians politically informed and not politically oppressed.

The Western Standard is a tabloid trying to exploit a controversy. The cartoons were available on the web - there is no reason to further aggravate the situation by printing the cartoons.

One could say the same about almost any commentary or story a newspaper or magazine chose to print.

The violent reaction of the Muslims unacceptable and unjustifiable but that is how they reacted and we cannot pretend it did not happen. One does not deal with a rabid dog by poking it with a stick.

I keep hearing these idiotic metaphors comparing Muslims to insects (poking a hornet's nest), bulls (waving a red flag) and now a rabid dog. Are you people trying to make the point that somehow or other Muslims are sub-human?

[Argus]

It seems to me that any editor that willingly publishes the cartoon that have already caused riots and property damage by outraged muslims, should be dealt with using the very charter rights that he is using to say he is free to do so.

In what way? Does the Charter say you should be punished if you outrage religious wackos?

He already knows ahead of time that publishing these cartoon will cause actions that will breach the public peace.

He does? Hasn't happened yet. Why should it? Are you saying Muslims are violent people?

So he should be charged accordingly and any damage or injury that is caused because of this, should fall on the Magazine to pay for.

Your words have driven me into such a state of anger I'm going to go out and burn down parliament hill.

You'll be getting the bill tomorrow.

The editors freedom to speak does not allow him to do things knowing in axdvance that there is a likely reaction to it, that could cause property damage, injury and possible death.

Yes, in fact, it does. Clearly the concept of free speech is foreign to you. Are you new to our country? There are books available for you to read about such things as free speech, free expression and free press. They are kept at the local library. You can get a card and read them free.

[Argus]

A rabid dog is generally shot dead.

Only if you have a gun. If you don't have a gun that works then you need to look for other alternatives. Needlessly provoking the dog in such a situation serves no purpose.

Well, we have a lot of guns. So I guess we should go out and shoot some Muslims, right? I mean, given they're rabid dogs...

[Argus]

Nonsense. It's the critical aspect of a news story, it should be included with any story on the topic.

When a story is pornographic in nature I don't see the newspapers or magazines printing the pictures that go with the story in the news, because it's "news".

When the word FUCK is used by someone in a news story I don't see them printing the word FUCK to quote the person.

Why all of a sudden is printing cartoon pictures that cause riots and death around the world a "freedom of the speech issue".

Why is showing someone with his brains blown all over the place "in bad taste" or using the word FUCK in "bad taste" or a showing intercourse or nudity in "bad taste".

So what? They're not in bad taste to us. They're innocuous, with perhaps two or three being sardonic commentaries on Islam today. I don't see how any of them actually insults the prophet, other than by showing Him. People are curious, and they want to see the pictures. Nothing wrong with that. There is no reason why we should allow our right to see or read or write or watch whatever we want to be governed by what a radical religious cult thinks.

BTW, that same religious cult is outraged by any critisism of it. So do we apply the same standards to all critical thought which offends Muslim - or any other religious cult or sect?

Only animosity,hate,destruction and lives lost will be the outcome...and for what.....cartoons?

It's not worth it.

I suspect there was an awful lot of animosity, hate, destruction, and lives lost when western media began to criticise the Catholic Church many hundreds of years back. However, the Catholics eventually got used to it, and some of that critisism was valid, and wound up changing attitudes for the better. IMHO Islam deserves immense criticism, and its adherents will be better off if they pay attention and consider making some changes to what is currently a pretty backward and culturally barbaric religion.

[Argus]

People who want the cartoons printed are the same as the people calling for violence: they both just want to pick a fight and are using this as an excuse to do it.

So one who writes something which causes offense is as guilty as one who resorts to arson and murder when one is offended? Nice concept. Maybe you'd prefer living in a nice theocracy somewhere.

[Argus]

The magazine, or "tabloid" in question did nothing wrong by re-publishing the cartoons in question. In fact, (and as much as I hate the Charter) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says, in Section 2:

Everyone has a right to fart in front of the Queen if they so desire. Does not mean they should.

Your opinions are offensive. If you continue with them I may go and burn stuff down.

I expect this will be the last time I hear from you.

[Spike22]

I just hope the actions of some in Canada will not cause harm to soldiers (and other folks helping) in muslim countries.

[BubberMiley]

People who want the cartoons printed are the same as the people calling for violence: they both just want to pick a fight and are using this as an excuse to do it.

So one who writes something which causes offense is as guilty as one who resorts to arson and murder when one is offended? Nice concept. Maybe you'd prefer living in a nice theocracy somewhere.

No, what I meant was their motives are the same: both sides--the wacky fundamentalist islamics, and the people who feel we must never back down from printing goofy cartoons that only serve to get the wacky islamics' dander up--just want to fight, and they're using this to drag peace-loving moderates into it.

[Wilber]

A fundamental freedom in a democracy is the freedom to be offended.

From many news reports I have read there are a few other cartoons being circulated that were actually cooked up by some Imams to fan the flames. Would it be OK to reprint those seeing as they were produced by Muslims?

Regarding all the references to animals. This behavior is purely human. Animals are far more honest when it comes to violence, they do not try to manipulate each other in order to instigate hatred and violence toward other animals.

[Argus]

People who want the cartoons printed are the same as the people calling for violence: they both just want to pick a fight and are using this as an excuse to do it.

So one who writes something which causes offense is as guilty as one who resorts to arson and murder when one is offended? Nice concept. Maybe you'd prefer living in a nice theocracy somewhere.

No, what I meant was their motives are the same: both sides--the wacky fundamentalist islamics, and the people who feel we must never back down from printing goofy cartoons that only serve to get the wacky islamics' dander up--just want to fight, and they're using this to drag peace-loving moderates into it.

What'a a moderate? Someone who won't stand up for anything if it causes a fuss? I think Levant had a point. Theres a huge controversy over these cartoons, and people had the right to see them. And Warren, in his column today, had another point. Tons of people have not seen them, and probably assume that the cartoons are really bad, really insulting, even deliberately so. But they're not. They're innocuous. A couple are political satire or comment on the Islam of today, as seen by the cartoonists. But they aren't particularly harsh, and don't mock the prophet, as is being repeatedly described by the mainstream press.

These cartoons weren't commisioned as "draw me cartoons that insult the prophet" but "draw me cartoons of the prophet". So terming them as radicals, or the media over here who have reprinted them as radicals - in the same breath as those who are rioting, is simply unfair.

[BubberMiley]

But given the climate that has resulted from the printing of those cartoons, what's the point of inciting them further? It's not being cowardly; it's just common sense. It isn't necessary to better inform people, because if they were really interested enough to see them, they could find them easily online at many sites, including this one: http://www.landoverbaptist.net/forums/inde...?showtopic=6353

The average reader of the Western Standard has Internet access so pretending it's essential that the public has a print copy to look at is preposterous. The only other argument to print them then is to show that you will not back down from radical islamists no matter how ridiculous and unnecessary the fight. But you're not backing down from anything just by choosing not to print a poorly drawn, unfunny cartoon anyway.

So it winds up you're just using this to provoke a fight you've wanted for a long time--just like they are.

[betsy]

Any Muslim who cannot live by our laws should hotfoot it back to the Middle East where they can easily live under Muslim law.

Exactly.

[betsy]

We should publish cartoons that mock the holocaust too.

After all -- no one has the right to be pissed about it -- it's only a cartoon for pete's sake!

All newspapers should carry cartoons of priests luring young boys into sex...

and Jews, skinny jews with money belts.

What you'd you think of that?

No, I don't think the muslim reaction is "ok".

But nor is it "ok" to publish the cartoons.

Put the shoe on the other foot for 5 minutes folks.

Ezra Levant is the north's version of Tucker Carlson -- a windbag with no brain.

Oh we've been there....Christians had already tolerated quite a few blasphemous insults...and the curious thing is we've not seen these kind of reactions from indignant sympathizers of the rioting lot.

It's even more than just bloody satire cartoons we've dealt with.

[betsy]

Nonsense. It's the critical aspect of a news story, it should be included with any story on the topic.

When a story is pornographic in nature I don't see the newspapers or magazines printing the pictures that go with the story in the news, because it's "news".

When the word FUCK is used by someone in a news story I don't see them printing the word FUCK to quote the person.

Why all of a sudden is printing cartoon pictures that cause riots and death around the world a "freedom of the speech issue".

Why is showing someone with his brains blown all over the place "in bad taste" or using the word FUCK in "bad taste" or a showing intercourse or nudity in "bad taste".

These cartoons are in bad taste to the people who's culture says they are in bad taste.

Why can't western society accept this culture's disgust of these cartoons and stop trying to instantly change these people to western thinking.

The process will take time to change,why force it.

Only animosity,hate,destruction and lives lost will be the outcome...and for what.....cartoons?

It's not worth it.

Those cartoons were published in Denmark. And re-published in Europe. Not in Middle-Eastern countries.

What about Salomon Rushdie? He wrote a book that the muslims found blasphemous and they put a price on his head! Now they're going a big step farther!

What? Are you just going to let freedom go just because some lunatics from another country wanted you to?

[betsy]

Not everyone has access to the internet. Everyone can walk into a Chapters and read the Standards... oh wait, nope, Chapters banned that already! Go Queen of censorship Heather Reisman.

So really, if you don't have the internet, or a subscription to the Standard, your simply out of luck, you don't deserve to see the news!

No to beat this to death, but EVERYONE has a friend with the net, and most if not all libraries have the net. If you want to see them bad enough, it ain't hard.

But I happen to want to peruse a magazine. Not the net. As long as we still have freedom of the press and free speech, along with all the freedom that comes with a democratic country...then I'll exercise my freedom to choose.

[BubberMiley]

That's fine, but World War I was started because a small group of Serb nationalists killed Franz Ferdinand (who's now touring Canada with Death Cab for Cutie). Small events can result in the bloodshed of millions, so I just think it's wise to pick your battles. I don't want to die for lame-ass cartoons like that. I'd much rather die for Calvin and Hobbes.

And no one is jeopardizing freedom of speech. Ezra Levant is at no risk of being locked away for printing them. The point is whether it's worth it to publish them. Why are you not defending freedom of speech, say, when someone's middle finger gets digitized on TV while flipping the bird? What percentage of the population is actually offended by witnessing that action, and if they are, by your logic, why should we care? What about women's breasts and nudity in primetime? I'm not offended by breasts, but I am sympathetic that others are and am willing to tolerate some self-censorship on the part of the media for the sake of everybody getting along with each other.

[betsy]

People who want the cartoons printed are the same as the people calling for violence: they both just want to pick a fight and are using this as an excuse to do it.

So one who writes something which causes offense is as guilty as one who resorts to arson and murder when one is offended? Nice concept. Maybe you'd prefer living in a nice theocracy somewhere.

No, what I meant was their motives are the same: both sides--the wacky fundamentalist islamics, and the people who feel we must never back down from printing goofy cartoons that only serve to get the wacky islamics' dander up--just want to fight, and they're using this to drag peace-loving moderates into it.

But don't you see....you're talking of "appeasement".

If you don't make a stand early enough...if you show that you can easily be bullied...do you think that will be the end of it?

What next?

What if they suddenly take the notion to think like the Hamas...of not wanting to recognize Israel's existence?

So what happens when they do declare that letting infidels live is the greatest insult to Allah?

[betsy]

That's fine, but World War I was started because a small group of Serb nationalists killed Franz Ferdinand (who's now touring Canada with Death Cab for Cutie). Small events can result in the bloodshed of millions, so I just think it's wise to pick your battles. I don't want to die for lame-ass cartoons like that. I'd much rather die for Calvin and Hobbes.

I agree with you. Just watching the mass of angry people bent on violence is scary.

But I think whatever the real reasons are why these cartoons had re-surfaced....it is a good thing in a way, because it showed us what we have to deal with if ever there comes a time when we really have to deal with something like this.

If not the cartoons, there will be something else.

[geoffrey]

No one is making them look at the cartoons...

[BubberMiley]

But don't you see....you're talking of "appeasement".

And the radical muslim warmongers are saying the exact same thing to the rational muslims who say "but it's just a stupid cartoon!"

But don't you see....you're talking of "appeasement".

[Canuck E Stan]

What? Are you just going to let freedom go just because some lunatics from another country wanted you to?

Are Canadian Muslims lunatics, because they don't like it?

Why can't people respect the fact that it offends Muslims.

You don't think there is anything wrong,but that's you.

It offends Muslims.

Not only Muslims around the world,but Muslims here in Canada.

How can you pass judgement on what is offensive to someone else.

Only they can make that judgement.

And I will respect their judgement because it is their judgement, not mine.

This wasn't supposedly offensive.....but fifty years later one group finally said enough is enough.

Offensive

[Melanie_]

Canuck - that is a point well made.