PM is distressed

[geoffrey]

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?

Nope, haven't raised children.

You don't have to let/make your kids read the damned thing. Also taking it to the extreme doesn't help your cause.

Why can't we all look at the cartoons and make judgements about them ourselves? That seems like the democratic way to do things.

[BubberMiley]

Also taking it to the extreme doesn't help your cause.

Why can't we all look at the cartoons and make judgements about them ourselves? That seems like the democratic way to do things.

Isn't that what we're doing? You have access to the pictures--there are two or three links on this thread. Look at them, democratically decide for yourself whether you personally find depictions of the prophet to be offensive (I'm guessing not), and avoid taking it to the extreme of printing it in the MSM. Perfect compromise!

[Wilber]

Also taking it to the extreme doesn't help your cause.

Why can't we all look at the cartoons and make judgements about them ourselves? That seems like the democratic way to do things.

Isn't that what we're doing? You have access to the pictures--there are two or three links on this thread. Look at them, democratically decide for yourself whether you personally find depictions of the prophet to be offensive (I'm guessing not), and avoid taking it to the extreme of printing it in the MSM. Perfect compromise!

All links from outside Canada.

[geoffrey]

Also taking it to the extreme doesn't help your cause.

Why can't we all look at the cartoons and make judgements about them ourselves? That seems like the democratic way to do things.

Isn't that what we're doing? You have access to the pictures--there are two or three links on this thread. Look at them, democratically decide for yourself whether you personally find depictions of the prophet to be offensive (I'm guessing not), and avoid taking it to the extreme of printing it in the MSM. Perfect compromise!

That doesn't consider the millions of Canadians with no interest access or just access at work where they'd probably get dumped on for looking for the cartoons.

It goes beyond just this issue. The media tells you what you think about issues when it prints things like "offensive muslim cartoons." Personally, I think Canadians are at least at the very lowest intelligent enough to make those decisions on their own.

If they are offended, then they turn the page and move on with their life. How ridiculous.

[Hicksey]

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.

I talked to Osama last week. He helped me fix my problem with Norton Systemworks. His english is still broken, but getting better.

I tried tracking the call, but got nowhere. I figured I could get something back from Bush for that useless piece of software, since Norton won't give me anything now that the box has been opened.

[Army Guy]

I think we have blown this all out of proportion. And we are using arguments that really don't apply.

The press are claiming that thier freedom of speach is being curtailed. When in fact it is not being curtailed but they are finding out it has limitations. The same limitations that normal every day Canadians use everyday.

Like walking down a crowded mall a commenting on every womens Ass or breast out loud , or from making racist remarks, or just using profanity around a crowd of elderly women.

Millions of muslims have already said it is insulting to them and thier religion that much we know already thru thier actions or thier media. (thier actions being right or wrong here are not the piont) the piont being we already know they find it insulting. Again MOST normal Canadians don't continue to insult someone once they find out the remark is insulting I said most...

There are those that say" i like to see them to make up my own mind", "WHY" is my question to them, do you have to decide anything when millions have already said it's insulting to thier culture. do we continue to insult them until everyone in the globe gets to see these stupid cartoons. so that they can make -up thier own minds. Give me a break....

If i told you SHIT stinks do you actually have to bend down a take a whiff, "YUP" shit stinks, i guess you were right. or poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick hurts.

This whole thing is not about stomping on our freedom of speach because of threats or actions that the muslims are taking. It was about the media using good judgement in the first place. again common sense and respecting other races or culture.

I find it at little ironic that europe has brought to court a man whom was a Pro Nazi whom was expressing is own opinions on the holocaust. Expressing his freedoms of speach so he says . And yet thier media continue to publish these cartoons knowing full well it provokes them (muslims) into violence.

My Webpage

Do we continue to provoke them until something stupid happens and a conflict breaks out. When do we stop.

where do we draw the line.

It's not about us standing the line flexing our muscles "don't F--k with our freedom of speach".

And it's not about "let everyone see them and judge for themselfs" it's about showing respect and using common sense.

[Argus]

Also taking it to the extreme doesn't help your cause.

Why can't we all look at the cartoons and make judgements about them ourselves? That seems like the democratic way to do things.

Isn't that what we're doing? You have access to the pictures--there are two or three links on this thread. Look at them, democratically decide for yourself whether you personally find depictions of the prophet to be offensive (I'm guessing not), and avoid taking it to the extreme of printing it in the MSM. Perfect compromise!

Forgive me, but it seems to me that your "moral" argument is based on Muslims being too stupid to understand how to work a computer. We mustn't print these cartoons in newspapers, but it's okay to put them on the internet because, well, Muslims can't find the internet. Is that not the gist of what you're saying?

[Argus]

I think we have blown this all out of proportion. And we are using arguments that really don't apply.

The press are claiming that thier freedom of speach is being curtailed. When in fact it is not being curtailed but they are finding out it has limitations. The same limitations that normal every day Canadians use everyday.

Like walking down a crowded mall a commenting on every womens Ass or breast out loud , or from making racist remarks, or just using profanity around a crowd of elderly women.

You are severely confused. You are equating deliberately and understandably offensive conduct directed specifically at individuals within our community with incidental and unreasonable offence caused to anonymous groups of religious fanatics.

You are equating direct, in-your-face insult which would be seen as a challenge, and often incitement to violence, to something on a piece of paper aimed specifically at no one.

One can, and often does insult individuals on the internet, anonymously, and while rude, this is not a goad to violence. One does not, however, go to a bar, and get in someone's face, someone you hardly know, and call them names. There is a profound difference in the level of challenge and incitement involved.

Millions of muslims have already said it is insulting to them and thier religion

There are many, many religions out there. IF we must obey the dictates of Muslims, must we not also obey the dictates of Hindus and Sikhs, of Baptists and Mormons? Of Buddhists and Scientologsts and Moonies?

What is a religion? The Scientologists and Moonies take profound offence at accusations that they brainwash people. Should be ban such suggestions, even if true? What if religious zealots within the other communities start agitating about things which profoundly offend them? Do we have to catalogue all the world religions and then make a list of all the things we can't say or do or draw or show in case some religious wacko decides to set fire to things in protest?

Do we continue to provoke them until something stupid happens and a conflict breaks out. When do we stop. where do we draw the line.

We dont draw a line. We say that we believe in freedom of speech, no matter who it offends. And if you don't like that; tough.

It's not about us standing the line flexing our muscles "don't F--k with our freedom of speach".

And it's not about "let everyone see them and judge for themselfs" it's about showing respect and using common sense.

It's about censorship. You're in favour of it. I'm not.

[na85]

I don't think that's what he's saying.

First of all, the internet provides a certain measure anonymity. If I wanted to propagate hate literature, I could start an alias other than na85 and start a hate website.

Secondly, it's not that muslims can't find the internet, I believe that his point was that many of them don't have access to it, living in a 3rd world country.

[Wilber]

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is not that MSM won't print them but that there was absolutely no Canadian source that you could go to to see them until the Standard printed them. If our so called betters in the media and government had their way and we had no access to foreign sources, we would have no idea why Muslims were rioting burning and killing around the world except for what they tell us. We would just have to take their word for it. That so many Canadians find this acceptable, I find disturbing. It's what totalitarian states do.

"Do we continue to provoke them until something stupid happens and a conflict breaks out. When do we stop.

where do we draw the line.

It's not about us standing the line flexing our muscles "don't F--k with our freedom of speach".

And it's not about "let everyone see them and judge for themselfs" it's about showing respect and using common sense. "

Europe was saying the same thing in the early thirties. " Don't provoke them, they aren't really serious, it will pass." By 1945, with a continent in ruins and 50 million dead, it was obvious the Nazi's weren't going away and they weren't kidding.

We have a group which believes every one of us that does not believe as they do, does not deserve to live. Sound familiar? If that doesn't deserve at least a cartoon, I don't know what does.

[Army Guy]

Argus:

You are severely confused. You are equating deliberately and understandably offensive conduct directed specifically at individuals within our community with incidental and unreasonable offence caused to anonymous groups of religious fanatics.

You are equating direct, in-your-face insult which would be seen as a challenge, and often incitement to violence, to something on a piece of paper aimed specifically at no one.

perhaps i am confused, I will agree with you the "first time the cartoon appeared" it could have been incidental, and perhaps they did not know it was offensive( Unlikely,but for sake of augument) after the cartoon was shown for the first time the muslim community in europe had told the media that it was offensive to thier culture. ( My piont is that this is when the publishing of these cartoons should have stopped, once it is found it is offensive)

But that does not sell papers, they continued to publish the cartoons, quoting it was thier right under freedom of speach. The continues publishing of these cartoons were deliberate and understandably offensive conduct directed at specific group within thier communities.

Because it may not be offensive to me or you does not mean it may not be offensive to others, and they do see it as a challenge that will incite a violent reaction. As we have already seen on the media.

It's aimed at no one Give me a break, what group of people do you think it was aimed at, what ethinic group first poped into your mind.

One can, and often does insult individuals on the internet, anonymously, and while rude, this is not a goad to violence. One does not, however, go to a bar, and get in someone's face, someone you hardly know, and call them names. There is a profound difference in the level of challenge and incitement involved

OK i agree, but what is your piont one can use common sense and respect at the bar, but not on the internet or in this case the media because you fell safe from physical violence.

There are many, many religions out there. IF we must obey the dictates of Muslims, must we not also obey the dictates of Hindus and Sikhs, of Baptists and Mormons? Of Buddhists and Scientologsts and Moonies?

Nobody is saying "we must obey" anything it is after all our freedom of speach, what I'm saying is that freedom has limitations and in using that freedom wantonly there are consquences. I don't see the big deal here we as Canadians use common sense and respect when we deal with different minorities in our every day lives, why should we then not make our media do the same. Do they have different rights and freedoms than we do.

Or are you saying that it is impossiable to report on world affairs without using common sense and respect.

and what does the showing of cartoons have to do with the reporting of the news, other than to poke fun at an ethinic group.

We dont draw a line. We say that we believe in freedom of speech, no matter who it offends. And if you don't like that; tough.

This is not about freedom of speech, it's about selling news papers, and headlines...Since when does the Media care about your freedoms. for them It's all about money it always has been...

Freedom of speech does not allow you to say what ever you want, when you want without consquences . and if you don't like that: tough..

It's about censorship. You're in favour of it. I'm not.

Yes it is, for good reason be it censorship in the media or self censorship it's here and has been forever, and is not likely to go anytime soon.

[Hicksey]

We dont draw a line. We say that we believe in freedom of speech, no matter who it offends. And if you don't like that; tough.

This is not about freedom of speech, it's about selling news papers, and headlines...Since when does the Media care about your freedoms. for them It's all about money it always has been...

Freedom of speech does not allow you to say what ever you want, when you want without consquences . and if you don't like that: tough..

Its one thing for someone to take you to task for something you have expressed. But setting fires and creating general chaos and bedlam over a cartoon is akin to shooting someone in the leg because they punched you in the shoulder. In any civilized society that would land you in jail, and as well it ought to.

Having said that, I don't think that people believe that it is a free speech issue are saying that our freedom to express ourselves gives us free reign to insult people without consequence. But when people react to what they see and hear they must act peacefully to say the very least. Their actions in this instance, are not well thought out and only serve to make those who drew the cartoons to think even less of them. If they are unhappy with the cartoons, maybe they ought to think a little about how they got that reputation in the first place. And they need to understand that the world is not filled with muslims and that differing cultures may not see things the way they do--and that that doesn't mean the world's coming to and end or that we're all infidels that need to be exterminated.

The rest of the world lives in general peace even though we do not agree on a multitude of things. That part of the world needs to be able to so function if they want the respect of the rest of the world.

[Army Guy]

Its one thing for someone to take you to task for something you have expressed. But setting fires and creating general chaos and bedlam over a cartoon is akin to shooting someone in the leg because they punched you in the shoulder. In any civilized society that would land you in jail, and as well it ought to

I've said in previous posts that i am not making excuses for the muslims actions, and like you agree that they have gone way overboard.

However, the danes Muslim community have told them at the very start of this chain of events that they find these cartoons offensive, (this is where it should have stopped) that would have been the common sense thing to do. But that is not what happens because it does not sell papers.

Having said that, I don't think that people believe that it is a free speech issue are saying that our freedom to express ourselves gives us free reign to insult people without consequence.

Thats not what i'm getting from some of the remarks.

We dont draw a line. We say that we believe in freedom of speech, no matter who it offends. And if you don't like that; tough.

If they are offended, then they turn the page and move on with their life. How ridiculous

But when people react to what they see and hear they must act peacefully to say the very least. Their actions in this instance, are not well thought out and only serve to make those who drew the cartoons to think even less of them.

You mean the same way you would react to a total stranger commenting on your wifes chest, or some other remark that you find extremely offensive. who are we to say how they should react, when we don't know just how offensive the remark is to them. We have already proven that we as Canadians can and will react to remarks we find offensive perhaps not burning down buildings or death threats but exchange physical blows with those responsable.

It's easy for us to sit in our easy chairs and comment on our freedoms and to preach to those that we think are not acting the way we want them to. And then tell them in the same breath i can make any comments i'd like because it's my right, and if you don't like it F--k you. and then to think we are not escalating the whole problem.

The rest of the world lives in general peace even though we do not agree on a multitude of things. That part of the world needs to be able to so function if they want the respect of the rest of the world.

I think respect is a two way street, and if we want to sit in our chairs and pass judgement on others then we should be setting the example for them to follow. Not telling them it's my right to insult you, when i want , however i want. Shut the f--k -up. Because that is what we have done, but will it solve anything. Will it bring the world closer to being able to function the way we want them to. or is it only going to escalate things.

[BubberMiley]

Some people's only interest is to escalate things. Usually they're the ones who make money off of war and don't have to fight them though.

[Wilber]

Some people's only interest is to escalate things. Usually they're the ones who make money off of war and don't have to fight them though.

Some peoples only interest is to stick their heads in the sand, accept what they are told and hope the bad people go away.

[BubberMiley]

Some peoples only interest is to stick their heads in the sand, accept what they are told and hope the bad people go away.

How does reprinting a poorly drawn cartoon ad nauseum make bad people go away? In fact, when does insulting people ever make them go away? Fact the fact--you don't want the cartoons reprinted because you want the opportunity to see them from a Canadian printing press; you want them reprinted because you (rightfully) dislike radical muslims and don't care one way or the other for moderate ones. You think it makes you appear bold and willing to stand up to them, when all it really shows is that, like the radical muslims, you just want to enflame moderates and get them into your fight.

[Wilber]

Some peoples only interest is to stick their heads in the sand, accept what they are told and hope the bad people go away.

How does reprinting a poorly drawn cartoon ad nauseum make bad people go away? In fact, when does insulting people ever make them go away? Fact the fact--you don't want the cartoons reprinted because you want the opportunity to see them from a Canadian printing press; you want them reprinted because you (rightfully) dislike radical Muslims and don't care one way or the other for moderate ones. You think it makes you appear bold and willing to stand up to them, when all it really shows is that, like the radical Muslims, you just want to enflame moderates and get them into your fight.

I have no wish to offend people I have nothing against. If people wish to object, I can understand, if they wish to be "inflamed", that is their choice. Moderates do not get "inflamed" by definition. It has nothing to do with me feeling bold by standing up to terrorists. I don't feel bold at all. It has everything to do with my own government and media conspiring to keep me in the dark because they know what is best for me. As I said, there is absolutely no way a Canadian could find out what all the commotion is about if they had no access to foreign media. There is not even a Canadian website (that I can find) that has these pictures on it. Don't you find that disconcerting in a so called open and free country? Have we become a nation of Chamberlains? He was well meaning to. To me it's not about freedom of the press, it's about my right to be informed.

Yes I dislike radical groups that maintain I have no right to live and are dedicated to making that come true. And I don't give a rats ass if I offend them or not because it's not about them being offended, the fact that we exist at all is offensive to many of them. As far as I can see, that is who those cartoons were directed at, not the average Muslim.

If I were a Muslim or follower of any particular religion, I would be far more concerned about people killing in my name and in the name of the Prophet I follow than I would about some stupid cartoons.

[betsy]

after the cartoon was shown for the first time the muslim community in europe had told the media that it was offensive to thier culture. ( My piont is that this is when the publishing of these cartoons should have stopped, once it is found it is offensive)

But that does not sell papers, they continued to publish the cartoons, quoting it was thier right under freedom of speach. The continues publishing of these cartoons were deliberate and understandably offensive conduct directed at specific group within thier communities.

Exactly. Why do you think Europe seemed to have united and decided to go and keep re-printing? Yes, you could say it is provocation.....but don't you see, there's something more to this than just those bloody cartoons!

As I've asked a couple of times before, do you remember Salomon Rushdie? He wrote a book more than a decade ago that talked of something the muslims did not like...and the mullah of Iran had put a fatwa on him. A fatwa is a death sentence, urging any muslims all over the world to kill this man.

That was a blatant attack on feedom of speech, creativity, opinion, press..etc..,

Then a European movie maker was killed for making a movie that a muslim found offensive! If you hadn't yet, please refer to the area World forum wherein I posted a topic called "What made Europe do it?" It has a link on related incidents. Then maybe you'll see that there is a reason behind this intentional move of the media.

[betsy]

Some people's only interest is to escalate things. Usually they're the ones who make money off of war and don't have to fight them though.

By escalate, you mean by showing resistance? By not readily giving up one's rights? By stubbornly digging in and not wanting to budge? I

You're right. Some people's only interest is to escalate things. Just like the governments and the radical elements who fuel the fires in these protests in their bid to smother the West.

[geoffrey]

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.

[betsy]

Fact the fact--you don't want the cartoons reprinted because you want the opportunity to see them from a Canadian printing press; you want them reprinted because you (rightfully) dislike radical muslims and don't care one way or the other for moderate ones. You think it makes you appear bold and willing to stand up to them, when all it really shows is that, like the radical muslims, you just want to enflame moderates and get them into your fight.

No! On the contrary, reprinting of these cartoons and editorial comments that give well-thought out opinions and various angles offer the moderates to read and analyse things for themselves.

We Christians had gotten over tougher and more blatant insults than just satirical cartoons....sure we fumed and made some protest, but we moved on. I'm sure those a lot of sensible moderate muslims would find it more insulting the way some non-muslims show their support in a patronizing way.

[Argus]

You are severely confused. You are equating deliberately and understandably offensive conduct directed specifically at individuals within our community with incidental and unreasonable offence caused to anonymous groups of religious fanatics.

You are equating direct, in-your-face insult which would be seen as a challenge, and often incitement to violence, to something on a piece of paper aimed specifically at no one.

perhaps i am confused, I will agree with you the "first time the cartoon appeared" it could have been incidental, and perhaps they did not know it was offensive( Unlikely,but for sake of augument) after the cartoon was shown for the first time the muslim community in europe had told the media that it was offensive to thier culture. ( My piont is that this is when the publishing of these cartoons should have stopped, once it is found it is offensive)

But that does not sell papers, they continued to publish the cartoons, quoting it was thier right under freedom of speach. The continues publishing of these cartoons were deliberate and understandably offensive conduct directed at specific group within thier communities.

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.

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. 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?

There are many, many religions out there. IF we must obey the dictates of Muslims, must we not also obey the dictates of Hindus and Sikhs, of Baptists and Mormons? Of Buddhists and Scientologsts and Moonies?

Nobody is saying "we must obey" anything it is after all our freedom of speach, what I'm saying is that freedom has limitations and in using that freedom wantonly there are consquences. I don't see the big deal here we as Canadians use common sense and respect when we deal with different minorities in our every day lives, why should we then not make our media do the same. Do they have different rights and freedoms than we do.

You start out by stating "no one says we must obey" and then go on to assert that freedom has limitations and why not "Make" the media respect others and shut up. So in other words you ARE actually saying that "we must obey" or at least, that we should "make" the media obey, and not offend people.

Again, I ask you, why then should we not make the media stop talking about homosexual rights, stop advocating it, stop showing homosexuals at all? They're all wicked sinners and Christians find all this talk of homosexual marriage very offensive.

We don't draw a line. We say that we believe in freedom of speech, no matter who it offends. And if you don't like that; tough.

This is not about freedom of speech,

Yes, it is. Full stop. Period.

Freedom of speech does not allow you to say what ever you want, when you want without consquences . and if you don't like that: tough..

So in other words, you'd find nothing wrong with an ultra-right Christian group murdering journalists who adocate for same-sex marriage? And you'd say to the media "you have to respect people, you know, and free speech has its consequences if you don't."

[betsy]

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.

I've seen the USA included too in these protests! It makes you wonder eh?

[Wilber]

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.

I bet 90% of these people didn't know where Denmark was before this. I bet at least 50% still don't.

[Spike22]

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.

I bet 90% of these people didn't know where Denmark was before this. I bet at least 50% still don't.

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.