PM is distressed

[BubberMiley]

I don't accept that it's a freedom of speech issue because the Western Standard is free to do as it pleases and should be. But it's not only radical muslims who feel strongly that those cartoons shouldn't be printed, and in the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal. I like to look out for my own interests and don't see how we gain anything by printing them. Freedom of speech is not being threatened and they're crappy cartoons anyway. Perhaps the reason they haven't been printed in Canada other than by the Standard is that most of us have common sense.

[Wilber]

I don't accept that it's a freedom of speech issue because the Western Standard is free to do as it pleases and should be. But it's not only radical muslims who feel strongly that those cartoons shouldn't be printed, and in the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal. I like to look out for my own interests and don't see how we gain anything by printing them. Freedom of speech is not being threatened and they're crappy cartoons anyway. Perhaps the reason they haven't been printed in Canada other than by the Standard is that most of us have common sense.

If you didn't have access to foreign media through the internet, how would you know they are crappy?

[BubberMiley]

If you didn't have access to foreign media through the internet, how would you know they are crappy?

There's a lot of crap I don't need to know about that's filtered out so I never see it. Judgement calls are made like that all the time.

[Wilber]

If you didn't have access to foreign media through the internet, how would you know they are crappy?

There's a lot of crap I don't need to know about that's filtered out so I never see it. Judgement calls are made like that all the time.

Who's judgment, those who tell you what you need to know or your own? Maybe you don't need to know why people are rioting, burning and killing because of a cartoon but for some stupid reason, I think it's important. After decades of hearing "smart folks' tell me what is important only to find out later that they were full of it, I'm not as trusting as you.

[Wilber]

"Most are as thick as a Gurkha's foreskin and could not find thier own country on the gloge. Two IQ points higher they could be a stump, dummer than dirt but being used well by their propaganda machine."

Don't be dumping on Gurkhas now, they have been called the finest light infantry in the world. I have no knowledge of their foreskins.

[geoffrey]

If you didn't have access to foreign media through the internet, how would you know they are crappy?

There's a lot of crap I don't need to know about that's filtered out so I never see it. Judgement calls are made like that all the time.

Who's judgment, those who tell you what you need to know or your own? Maybe you don't need to know why people are rioting, burning and killing because of a cartoon but for some stupid reason, I think it's important. After decades of hearing "smart folks' tell me what is important only to find out later that they were full of it, I'm not as trusting as you.

Your right Wilber. People take way too much for granted. I personally like to see things as first-hand as possible and then make my value judgement, not have some journalist (who 9 times out of 10 aren't experts on the issue at hand anyways) tell me what to think.

I really hate being told what to think.

[ritamd]

I really hate being told what to think.

Hmmmm where do you get your information on what you do ot see first hand?

[betsy]

I don't accept that it's a freedom of speech issue because the Western Standard is free to do as it pleases and should be. But it's not only radical muslims who feel strongly that those cartoons shouldn't be printed, and in the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal. I like to look out for my own interests and don't see how we gain anything by printing them. Freedom of speech is not being threatened and they're crappy cartoons anyway. Perhaps the reason they haven't been printed in Canada other than by the Standard is that most of us have common sense.

Yes, the Western Standard is free to do as it pleases......but it is still a freedom issue since the various ways of protests (from the fatwa and murder and to violent protests) are meant to intimidate people from expressing their opinion.

The radicals are exploiting the issue and had successfully convinced and manipulated "peace-mongers" to turn on those who will not be intimidated....brilliantly calculating that the atmosphere of "political correctness" (which ironically muslims scoff at), will do half of the job for them.

A perfect example is right here on this forum.

[betsy]

There's a lot of crap I don't need to know about that's filtered out so I never see it. Judgement calls are made like that all the time.

Who decides about these lots of crap that "you don't need to know?" Who makes this "judgement call" for you?

Liberal-leaning papers? The lefties?

People in communist and oppressive regimes are told only of what "they need to know." Other information that they did not have the need to know are filtered out so they never see them. They have various reasons for filtering out these information, one of them being: they're crappy info that will pollute the minds of the citizens, may inspire them into thinking, and make them feel unhappy and restless being in this kind of controllable situation. They might revolt.

[Spike22]

"Most are as thick as a Gurkha's foreskin and could not find thier own country on the gloge. Two IQ points higher they could be a stump, dummer than dirt but being used well by their propaganda machine."

Don't be dumping on Gurkhas now, they have been called the finest light infantry in the world. I have no knowledge of their foreskins.

I would never pick on them just stating they are a tough lot...

[Argus]

I don't accept that it's a freedom of speech issue because the Western Standard is free to do as it pleases and should be. But it's not only radical muslims who feel strongly that those cartoons shouldn't be printed, and in the grand scheme of things it's not that big a deal. I like to look out for my own interests and don't see how we gain anything by printing them. Freedom of speech is not being threatened and they're crappy cartoons anyway. Perhaps the reason they haven't been printed in Canada other than by the Standard is that most of us have common sense.

Of course it's a freedom of speech issue. The entire argument is whether news media should be free to print such things. And your attitude, that this particular incident isn't all that important, leaves out the precedent we set when we agree to abide by the laws of religions - or when we agree that things which "offend" some people, however unreasonable, ought to be forbidden - especially if those people who get easily offended are chronically violent.

[Argus]

If you didn't have access to foreign media through the internet, how would you know they are crappy?

There's a lot of crap I don't need to know about that's filtered out so I never see it. Judgement calls are made like that all the time.

Just what is "filtered out" that you don't need to know about? And who gets to make the decision on what you need to know?

[ritamd]

As I said Harper has no right to make any comments of distess or other, but i can see him using it to shut down free speech. And as I also said his supporters web site makes that cartoon look tame.

[scribblet]

How was there that many Danish flags in the Middle-East to burn?? Does anyone else not have a problem with how absolutely setup and pre-mediated these protests are? Does anyone else not see that this is a political attack by the Arab government leaders?

The cartoons were published 6 months ago, yet we hear only of it now, after a dossier with many forged cartoons was presented to Arab leaders. Most of these rioters haven't even seen the cartoons.

Personally, I think its an act of war by the leadership of these ridiculous dicatorships. Gloves are off now.

Of course they are a set up and this is premeditated. All done by radicals to inflame tensions. Fortunately a Canadian group is making sense.

Harper has every right and a duty to try and ease tensions, all part of the diplomatic process, however, I would have hoped he would take a firmer stand against the violence.

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=39516

While police said Toronto's protest was peaceful and without incident -- as was another on Saturday in downtown Vancouver -- the Muslim Canadian Congress said the time has come for the demonstrations to stop because they are inflaming tensions around the world.

Congress spokesman Tarek Fatah said the protests are being used by Islamic extremists as motivation to spread violence.

"We understand the pain and the hurt of the Muslim community but I am urging Muslims around the world to understand the repercussions of their actions, that their pain has been usurped by Islamic extremists," he said.

At least 45 people have died during protests around the world since the controversy erupted about three weeks ago.

[Army Guy]

Argus:

I disagree that the European newspapers which published the cartoons were doing so in order to sell newspapers. I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage.

No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

"I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. "

By using your logic if all europe had seen it as you do then why did they not all stand-up in solidarity, Why did'nt the european union stand-up and say enough is enough. because they are not united on this issue.

I find your belief that once they found the cartoons offended people they ought to have not published them to very troubling. Almost anything of substance offends someone. Virtually every major change in culture causes offense and controversy.

First off it was a cartoon, it had nothing to do with presenting a news worthy story, it's intention was to make fun of or show in a bad light a certain ethinic group. You've been defending your right to insult someone, or group when ever you want, and declaring your justified under freedom of speech.

If i as an individual say or do something that is offensive to someone or some group and that person or group of people inform me that it is offensive a "normal" person would chalk that up to a learning experiance and not repeat it. IE telling ethinic jokes in front of that ethinic group, either you did not know it was offensive or you are looking to provoke something.

Are you telling me that the media are not capable of express or reporting news without being offensive. Yes we are human and make mistakes or use bad judgement, we admit that and carry on with our lives.

Most normal people do not continue to be offensive unless they are looking to provoke a response.

There is a big difference between calmly discussing things of substance or trying to make a piont through insults.

Suppose I told you that talking about homosexuality was extremely offensive to Christians, and that the media must immediately stop showing homosexuals, talking about their rights and cultures, or advocating for things like homosexual marriage? I rather suspect you'd find that idea absurd. So how do you reconcile your ready willingness to offend Christians with your determination to not say anything or print anything which offends some other religious group?

Because we both know that in this country we are capable of sitting down and discussing almost any topic without being offensive towards both sides. Would we be able to have the same conversation if a news paper depicted a cartoon depicting naked gay man bent over a table with a wedding gown on and another gay man jamming him up the arse with a tuxedo on.

[betsy]

The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage.

So it's a business. And?

Is there anything wrong with that since we're supposed to be living in a country where free enterprise is norm? What is not dollar-driven?

In case you haven't read, some outlets had refused to carry the Western Standard for printing those cartoons. I wonder how many of those are from Corner or Convenience stores...seeing that a lot of these stores are owned or operated by muslims. It only shows that it's a mentality of "you do as we say or else you suffer."

[betsy]

First off it was a cartoon, it had nothing to do with presenting a news worthy story...

To you it's not a news-worthy story. That's your own opinion.

You have no right to judge for...or speak for us! You have no right to decide or make a "judgement call" for everyone.

[betsy]

Are you telling me that the media are not capable of express or reporting news without being offensive. Yes we are human and make mistakes or use bad judgement, we admit that and carry on with our lives.

So we don't call convicted child molesters, "perverts"...since that's an insulting title, isn't it? After all we just human and make mistakes.

We don't call serial or mass murderers "monsters?"

[Hicksey]

Argus:

I disagree that the European newspapers which published the cartoons were doing so in order to sell newspapers. I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage.

No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

"I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. "

By using your logic if all europe had seen it as you do then why did they not all stand-up in solidarity, Why did'nt the european union stand-up and say enough is enough. because they are not united on this issue.

I find your belief that once they found the cartoons offended people they ought to have not published them to very troubling. Almost anything of substance offends someone. Virtually every major change in culture causes offense and controversy.

First off it was a cartoon, it had nothing to do with presenting a news worthy story, it's intention was to make fun of or show in a bad light a certain ethinic group. You've been defending your right to insult someone, or group when ever you want, and declaring your justified under freedom of speech.

If i as an individual say or do something that is offensive to someone or some group and that person or group of people inform me that it is offensive a "normal" person would chalk that up to a learning experiance and not repeat it. IE telling ethinic jokes in front of that ethinic group, either you did not know it was offensive or you are looking to provoke something.

Are you telling me that the media are not capable of express or reporting news without being offensive. Yes we are human and make mistakes or use bad judgement, we admit that and carry on with our lives.

Most normal people do not continue to be offensive unless they are looking to provoke a response.

There is a big difference between calmly discussing things of substance or trying to make a piont through insults.

Suppose I told you that talking about homosexuality was extremely offensive to Christians, and that the media must immediately stop showing homosexuals, talking about their rights and cultures, or advocating for things like homosexual marriage? I rather suspect you'd find that idea absurd. So how do you reconcile your ready willingness to offend Christians with your determination to not say anything or print anything which offends some other religious group?

Because we both know that in this country we are capable of sitting down and discussing almost any topic without being offensive towards both sides. Would we be able to have the same conversation if a news paper depicted a cartoon depicting naked gay man bent over a table with a wedding gown on and another gay man jamming him up the arse with a tuxedo on.

More importantly, we can do just that--call a spade a spade--and be reasonably confident that the person we are talking to is civilized enough not to return 6 months later and burn your house down.

Violence isn't the answer.

The people reacting with violence only serve to make themselves look like prehistoric baffoons.

[Wilber]

"Because we both know that in this country we are capable of sitting down and discussing almost any topic without being offensive towards both sides. Would we be able to have the same conversation if a news paper depicted a cartoon depicting naked gay man bent over a table with a wedding gown on and another gay man jamming him up the arse with a tuxedo on."

I don't know, who's house would you burn down?

[Army Guy]

Betsy:

I disagree that the European newspapers which published the cartoons were doing so in order to sell newspapers. I don't see the likelihood of major profits in this, and if there were, I think more would have done so. No, I believe that those few media outlets which saw the controversy, saw the attacks on the Danes, honestly wanted to stand up for freedom of the press, in solidarity with the Danes, and tell the Muslims that here in the West we believe in freedom of speech - so if you're going to attack the Danes, you're going to have to attack us all.

The media is a business, like any business it is driven by profit. not some noble idea of keeping us informed, that is a by product. If the news does not sell papers it's not going to recieve the same coverage.

So it's a business. And?

Is there anything wrong with that since we're supposed to be living in a country where free enterprise is norm? What is not dollar-driven?

And ?

have you been following along here, Argus piont was that he seen it as the Media standing-up in solidarity for thiers and ours, freedom of speech, bullshit.... they did it for profit.

What is not dollar driven, The soldiers that are actually standing the line, overseas right now are not dollar driven "because if you think the pay is worth plus 45 degrees in an hostile enviroment your wrong." The same soldiers who's lives have been put in greater danger because some dick head decisded he and his paper could make a few dollars. Lets not forget the every day average citizen who may be taken hostage or worse killed so that some radical may prove his piont. All this over a stupid carton is it worth it.

In case you haven't read, some outlets had refused to carry the Western Standard for printing those cartoons. I wonder how many of those are from Corner or Convenience stores...seeing that a lot of these stores are owned or operated by muslims. It only shows that it's a mentality of "you do as we say or else you suffer."

Tell us all how you have suffered. tell us how anyone in Canada has suffered.

To you it's not a news-worthy story. That's your own opinion.

Perhaps you can educate me , explain to me how those cartoons are news worthy, perhaps you can explain to me what was the piont in printing them if not to provoke the muslims.

You have no right to judge for...or speak for us! You have no right to decide or make a "judgement call" for everyone.

I don't recall speaking for you,or deciding anything for you, or for that matter making any judgements for you. I have been quoted in saying most normal Canadians perhaps you don't fit into that catagory. But then again freedom of speech is only good if we all comply to your way of thinking. That we can insult anyone ,anytime because it's falls under our freedom of speech.

So we don't call convicted child molesters, "perverts"...since that's an insulting title, isn't it? After all we just human and make mistakes.

We don't call serial or mass murderers "monsters?"

You can call them what ever you want, however as i pionted out a million times that your freedom speech has limitations. and yes there are laws governing what you can't say, I've mentioned before that some of those laws are covered under the harrasment laws which have a broad spectrum of Interputation

"harrassment is anything that one individual percieves to be offensive, degrading,etc etc " it does not have to be directed at you, it could be part of a privite conversation you are not meant to hear. all that is need is for that on individual to say i find that offensive and you may find yourself in court. I did not write the laws or regulations i just passed on that info.

[betsy]

Most normal people do not continue to be offensive unless they are looking to provoke a response.

Actually, it is a very normal response to push back when you're being bullied.

[betsy]

So it's a business. And?

Is there anything wrong with that since we're supposed to be living in a country where free enterprise is norm? What is not dollar-driven?

And ?

have you been following along here, Argus piont was that he seen it as the Media standing-up in solidarity for thiers and ours, freedom of speech, bullshit.... they did it for profit.

I know what Argus' point is. It's the same as mine.

But your point is that it was a business making profit...and I say, so what?

If Western Standard made a point of standing up alongside European counterparts...and made a profit to boot...well, good for them! That's the beauty of free enterprise in a free country!

[betsy]

What is not dollar driven, The soldiers that are actually standing the line, overseas right now are not dollar driven "because if you think the pay is worth plus 45 degrees in an hostile enviroment your wrong." The same soldiers who's lives have been put in greater danger because some dick head decisded he and his paper could make a few dollars. Lets not forget the every day average citizen who may be taken hostage or worse killed so that some radical may prove his piont. All this over a stupid carton is it worth it.

Wait a minute here...as far as I know soldiers have been dying in the middle east even before this cartoon broke out!

Citizens have been taken hostage and beheaded waaaay before this cartoon scenario broke out! Let's not try to shift everything into this cartoon.

In fact, I bet these media who stood had finally had it and decided to do something about it!

Yeah they don't get that much pay..and the soldiers that died in other world wars did it for peanuts too...but they counted they were doing it for the freedom of this country....which now, some folks are taking for granted and slowly dismantling a little piece at a time.

[betsy]

To you it's not a news-worthy story. That's your own opinion.

Perhaps you can educate me , explain to me how those cartoons are news worthy, perhaps you can explain to me what was the piont in printing them if not to provoke the muslims.

Whether I think those cartoons are news-worthy or not, is not the point. The point is, you saying and declaring that these cartoons are not news-worthy, therefore they should not be published.

I interpret that as you thinking and deciding for us all!