PM is distressed

Army Guy · February 16, 2006

Betsy:

Has your freedom of speech been surpressed here in Canada. NO, it has not, your freedoms and rights stop at the borders. you do not have the same freedoms that you enjoy here in Canada, in say Afgan, Iraq, or any where else. you may think so but they do not.

Are thier actions having a effect on your freedom of speech here in Canada. "None that i'm aware of".

What message do you think will we give to everyone if we back down and capitulate and give up some rights just because a group decided to intimidate us through violent means? That violent intimidation works!

In the situation i gave you on another post you said both parties were wrong, one more than the other ,but both were wrong. Why can't the media admit that they are sorry that the cartoons were found to be offensive and no offense was meant. and let the issue fad away. It is what most grown-ups do when in that situation.

But the media has not shown the world that they are grown-up and continue to re-print these cartoons insiting more violence, because that sells more papers, this has stopped being about freedom of speech long ago and now is about profits.

It wouldn't be long before other zealot fanatics...not necessarily muslims...but every other group fighting for whatever cause they're fighting for will be following this violent means!
Look at those bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors!

Look at those anti-fur people who throw paint on fur-wearing celebrities! Maybe next time around, it wouldn't just be paint!

Look at Green Peace and its anti-whaling crusade! Didn't it endanger lives of whalers at one point?

What about that crusader against seal hunting who was trying to incite others to inflict bodily harm on the hunters!

What does that have to do with freedoms of speech, nothing...I'm not making excuses for any of the violence that the muslims have done nor trying to justify it...My piont here is the media is hidding behind freedoms of speech ,to cover-up thier part in all this. there the ones pulling the strings to sell more news papers. It has got nothing to do with Freedom of speech.

What have most Canadian outlets lost from not printing them? Credibility.

What credibility have we lost, it was reported , the public is informed , they have done their jobs. If anything they have gained credibility by not printing something that another culture finds offensive.

newbie · February 16, 2006

The cartoons in question.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698

Wilber · February 16, 2006

I have tried to find Canadian web pages that contain the cartoons on both Google and Yahoo. Lots of articles and comment but no cartoons themselves. If Canadians want to see what all the hubbub is about, it seems they will have to rely on foreign sources unless one buys a Standard. The Canadian passion not to be offensive at any price has even extended to the Internet. As a Canadian, it's not a characteristic I am particularly proud of.

If a group of people calling themselves Jews, Christians, any other religion or group were committing terrorist acts against innocent people, cartoonists or editorialist's should be all over it If someone claiming to act in my name was committing terrorist acts against innocent people, cartoonists and editorialist's should be all over it. I might be offended by what some of them had to say but which is more important, the cartoons or the acts that gave birth to them in the first place? If there is a problem within Islam or anything else, shooting the messenger won't fix it.

There never was a political cartoon that was any good if it didn't offend someone.

Spike22 · February 16, 2006

This just in... "Prime Minister not distressed just constipated". "It was a typo in the media" responded by spokesperson Dr Upyerbum, proctologist.

Wilber · February 16, 2006

This just in... "Prime Minister not distressed just constipated". "It was a typo in the media" responded by spokesperson Dr Upyerbum, proctologist.

That's a relief.

BubberMiley · February 16, 2006

My point is not a matter of passing judgement. My point is about our rights and freedom.

No one is questioning the Standard's right to print the cartoons; they're questioning their judgement in doing so.

New Abu Gharib pictures surfaced today. One of them shows a prisoner with a banana stuck in his ass. Some people may find this image offensive, but this is a relevant, current news story and people have a right (even an obligation) to know how prisoners are being treated.

Do you think the MSM shouldn't capitulate to those who feel that they should exercise restraint and self-censorship and not show those photos? Do you think we are jeopardizing our rights by not seeing them on the six-o-clock news? If a Canadian publication printed them and, as a result, there was an uproar among U.S. citizens, would you say that other media outlets who didn't print them have no credibility, that they're just caving in to intimidation?

betsy · February 17, 2006

No one is questioning the Standard's right to print the cartoons; they're questioning their judgement in doing so.
New Abu Gharib pictures surfaced today. One of them shows a prisoner with a banana stuck in his ass. Some people may find this image offensive, but this is a relevant, current news story and people have a right (even an obligation) to know how prisoners are being treated.

Do you think the MSM shouldn't capitulate to those who feel that they should exercise restraint and self-censorship and not show those photos? Do you think we are jeopardizing our rights by not seeing them on the six-o-clock news? If a Canadian publication printed them and, as a result, there was an uproar among U.S. citizens, would you say that other media outlets who didn't print them have no credibility, that they're just caving in to intimidation?

Did Western Standard say why they printed them? Obviously, they have a reason important enough for them to risk public ire and offending Muslim Canadians.

There's nothing wrong in questioning a judgement. This is a free country after all.

I actually have silently questioned why the media had covered abductions and beheadings, showing prisoners pleading for their lives...for in doing so, not only do they take away the victim's dignity...but they've also aided the terrorists in spreading terror by giving them publicity. Don't they incite in a way?

In this instance, inciting the terrorists to do more?

Did anyone question the judgement of the media? Or maybe there was an uproar that I've missed.

BubberMiley · February 17, 2006

Did Western Standard say why they printed them? Obviously, they have a reason important enough for them to risk public ire and offending Muslim Canadians.
There's nothing wrong in questioning a judgement. This is a free country after all.

There are several very logical explanations on this and the thread you started about this topic on why Western Standard printed those cartoons. I believe the most compelling is they want to boost their national profile with national news stories about them and, subsequently, sell more magazines.

I actually have silently questioned why the media had covered abductions and beheadings, showing prisoners pleading for their lives...for in doing so, not only do they take away the victim's dignity...but they've also aided the terrorists in spreading terror by giving them publicity. Don't they incite in a way?
In this instance, inciting the terrorists to do more?

I agree that the media should show restraint for the greater good of non-violent peaceful coexistance and respect for our fellow humans.

Did anyone question the judgement of the media? Or maybe there was an uproar that I've missed.

I was debating points you made. You were questioning the judgement of the media. :blink:

betsy · February 17, 2006

In the situation i gave you on another post you said both parties were wrong, one more than the other ,but both were wrong. Why can't the media admit that they are sorry that the cartoons were found to be offensive and no offense was meant. and let the issue fad away. It is what most grown-ups do when in that situation.
But the media has not shown the world that they are grown-up and continue to re-print these cartoons insiting more violence, because that sells more papers, this has stopped being about freedom of speech long ago and now is about profits.

As I understand this first printing happened in Denmark and there were some protest. Then after a few months these cartoons re-surfaced from different parts of Europe.

I don't know, Army Guy, why the European media would stubbornly do this. I am not familiar with the situation in Europe. But it is definitely a statement of some sort that the European media is trying to make.

Now, about this being for profits...what media does not exploit and make profits or high ratings from the misfortunes of others? Just take a look at the coverage they'd given abductions and beheadings.

They even show victims pleading for their lives. Not only do they exploit these shocking news....in a way they're encouraging the terrorists by giving them full publicity. I don't think I remember any big debates or questioning of the media's judgement over this.

Something positive though in the news today. Thousands of protesters held a peaceful rally in Pakistan and in Iran. I'm surprised with Iran.....maybe, the media sticking together and pushing back a bit did some good after all.

betsy · February 17, 2006

Did anyone question the judgement of the media? Or maybe there was an uproar that I've missed.

I was debating points you made. You were questioning the judgement of the media. :blink:

I meant questioning their judgement in showing the people who were abducted pleading for their lives.

Because I don't think there was any big deal made on those coverage...which actually also exploited the sufferings of the victims.

BubberMiley · February 17, 2006

Did anyone question the judgement of the media? Or maybe there was an uproar that I've missed.

I was debating points you made. You were questioning the judgement of the media.

I meant questioning their judgement in showing the people who were abducted pleading for their lives.

Because I don't think there was any big deal made on those coverage...which actually also exploited the sufferings of the victims.

Perhaps there should have been. The MSM appears to have had a change of heart though. I was always curious why the Nicholas Berg beheading video was as prominent as it was--even appearing as the lead story on FoxNews. Subsequent murders on video were not shown at all. My guess is their consciences got to them and they decided they needed to show more restraint. Good thing, I say.

ritamd · February 17, 2006

Really, who cares if Harper is distressed over a cartoon? He supports a web site that is much worse than any cartoon.

betsy · February 17, 2006

Perhaps there should have been. The MSM appears to have had a change of heart though. I was always curious why the Nicholas Berg beheading video was as prominent as it was--even appearing as the lead story on FoxNews. Subsequent murders on video were not shown at all. My guess is their consciences got to them and they decided they needed to show more restraint. Good thing, I say.

This latest prominent incident with Jill Carroll. CTV even showed comparisons of her three videos..."the first one shows her talking to the camera....the second one shows that she's weeping....the third one shows her pleading..."

I mean...what is this? Her reactions to her situations are normal given to any other who finds themselves facing death.

Tis true, they've seem to lessen up...and now only pick and choose those that are "news-worthy" and ratings-spiking victims.

But when they were at it , starting with the horrible Berg killing....no one criticized these media for their irresponsible, insensitive, offensive, inciting actions. Nobody criticized their profit-driven free publicity stunt for the terrorists.

The same media btw, who all profitted and exploited these beheadings...are the same ones now who try to look "principled".

So why this sudden big lecturing and criticism of the Western Standard? I hope it has nothing to do with the simple reason that it is a right-wing magazine.

Maybe if we just let them be and move on...they'll end up like the others who've been there and done that (those beheading coverage)...and let their own conscience dictate and let them decide for themselves.

Argus · February 17, 2006

We in Canada are among the many countries that have more freedoms than most, those freedoms should be used as they were intended, and should be used with caution and common sense. They do not give us the right to insult, mock, make racist comments etc.

I find your comments to be insulting and mocking my basic beliefs. Stop at once or I will blow things up.

Argus · February 17, 2006

But when you tell them cartoons are mocking and insultful to the prophet they'll believe it if they can't see them. The cartoons are not mocking the prophet, but it's amazing how many people - due to lousy journalism - believe they are.

Some of them are mocking the prophet, some of them aren't. The one with the bomb in his turban certainly is (even if that's a relevant statement for Islam today).

I don't think the bomb in the turban was critical of the prophet so much as critical of the violence in Islam, and fair commentary. And that's probably the worst of them.

Argus · February 17, 2006

Perhaps you can explain what was gained by printing these cartoons? What have most Canadian media outlets lost from not printing them ?

Showing that freedom cannot be suppressed through intimidation, is what was gained IMO. I think that was the message that resounded all over Europe.

What message do you think will we give to everyone if we back down and capitulate and give up some rights just because a group decided to intimidate us through violent means? That violent intimidation works!

It wouldn't be long before other zealot fanatics...not necessarily muslims...but every other group fighting for whatever cause they're fighting for will be following this violent means!

The freedom of the Canadian press was never in jeopardy over this. Noone has told them that the cartoons cannot be printed. The problem is that the people printing these cartoons are in no personal danger. They are stirring up sh!t for no reason. It is our soldiers, and others overseas who will have to deal with the consequences.

I disagree that they are in no personal danger. I bet that Levant is not feeling terribly safe these days, with all the Muslims complaining about the cartoons his magazine ran. Furthermore, you miss the point. Barring a revolution or coup, freedom of speech/press isn't likely to die overnight. It dies in slow incriments with every increasing controls and restraints. Just look at some of the European media and the libel and human rights restrictions on what they can print and say - hell, what even a common citizen can say.

Who would have believed, twenty five years ago, that an ordinary man who said something insulting to another man could be arrested and imprisoned in Many western European countries because the content of his insult was considered offensive to the state and used forbidden words and terms?

betsy · February 17, 2006

Some of them are mocking the prophet, some of them aren't. The one with the bomb in his turban certainly is (even if that's a relevant statement for Islam today).

Btw, the one with the turban bomb....did it say anything that that man was supposed to be prophet?

Was there a caption...or is it just the Muslim's own interpretation of it?

If it has no caption or indication that it is the prophet....I'd just think it is a satire of any muslim suicide bomber. But anyway...this comment from me is not really that relevant. Just wondering...

BubberMiley · February 17, 2006

The whole point of the series of cartoons was to depict the prophet and take on that taboo.

BubberMiley · February 17, 2006

Barring a revolution or coup, freedom of speech/press isn't likely to die overnight. It dies in slow incriments with every increasing controls and restraints. Just look at some of the European media and the libel and human rights restrictions on what they can print and say - hell, what even a common citizen can say.

Do you think freedom of the press is jeopardized by the mainstream press' failure to show all the Abu Gharib pictures?

Spike22 · February 17, 2006

Muslims like every other religion have different beliefs and the actions to be taken when those beliefs are underminded. I think the PM is right to publically to speak out on intolerance even though he believes in free speech. Free speech however comes at a price and we must be wise enough to know when, where and how to use it and the impact it might have when the genie is let loose.

Canuck E Stan · February 18, 2006

From the Toronto Star

Muslims praise Harper, MacKay

OTTAWA — A coalition of Muslim groups is congratulating Canadian leaders for their non-violent response to cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
The group says the Canadian response was unique in that it struck a balance between freedom of expression and protecting people from hate and racism.

Diplomacy,doing it the right way.

geoffrey · February 19, 2006

Barring a revolution or coup, freedom of speech/press isn't likely to die overnight. It dies in slow incriments with every increasing controls and restraints. Just look at some of the European media and the libel and human rights restrictions on what they can print and say - hell, what even a common citizen can say.

Do you think freedom of the press is jeopardized by the mainstream press' failure to show all the Abu Gharib pictures?

Absolutely.

I really don't like the news telling me what to think of an issue. "These horrific images of inhuman abuse from Abu Gharib"... but no pictures.

While I agree that it was inhumane and an abuse of human rights, I made that conclusion by judging the evidence myself. If you wish to get away from all these brainwashed people that choose one party line or another and defend it to the death, you've got to let people make their own value judgements about issues.

Show information and images in the news. With technology now there is no excuse for not doing this. Let people make up their own minds. Adjectives about issues shouldn't be used. Thats what opinion pieces and editorials are for.

I would have like to see on the front page stories about these cartoons the following:

- The cartoons

- The aspects of Islam that disagree with this

- The reaction of the Islamic people to these cartoons

Thats the information people need to make a fair judgement about the issues on their own terms.

I don't need some journalist to tell me how to think of the cartoons, or of Abu Gharib.

BubberMiley · February 19, 2006

So you would have no problem with a full-colour graphic picture of an Iraqi with a banana in his ass on the front page of the local daily? You would even say that it should be there?

Ever raised any children?

Spike22 · February 19, 2006

From the Toronto Star
Muslims praise Harper, MacKay

OTTAWA — A coalition of Muslim groups is congratulating Canadian leaders for their non-violent response to cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
The group says the Canadian response was unique in that it struck a balance between freedom of expression and protecting people from hate and racism.

Diplomacy,doing it the right way.

Then we have the normal Pkistan reaction - "In Pakistan, a cleric has announced a $1-million US bounty for killing the cartoonist who drew the caricatures."

What a dump Pakistan is. One of the real arseholes of the planet no wonder Osama lives there - good spot for him.