The Holocaust never happened.

[gerryhatrick]

Are we allowed to say that now? Or make cartoons about it?

Hey Western Standard, how about this for a cartoon:

Show a couple of Jews sipping champagne and eating caviar in the lobby of a human rights museum. One is whispering to the other "Great building and good eats, huh? All we had to do is invent the holocaust!"

That's illegal in this Country. I'll wait for the knock on the door now I guess.

[geoffrey]

Are we allowed to say that now? Or make cartoons about it?

Hey Western Standard, how about this for a cartoon:

Show a couple of Jews sipping champagne and eating caviar in the lobby of a human rights museum. One is whispering to the other "Great building and good eats, huh? All we had to do is invent the holocaust!"

That's illegal in this Country. I'll wait for the knock on the door now I guess.

It's not illegal. It was only illegal in that one case because it was a teacher telling his students it was true.

And if there is some specific law against it, its obviously unconstitutional as you should be able to say that if you so wish to make yourself look like a complete idiot.

[Argus]

Are we allowed to say that now? Or make cartoons about it?

Hey Western Standard, how about this for a cartoon:

Show a couple of Jews sipping champagne and eating caviar in the lobby of a human rights museum. One is whispering to the other "Great building and good eats, huh? All we had to do is invent the holocaust!"

That's illegal in this Country. I'll wait for the knock on the door now I guess.

While I don't agree with hate laws, the law is specific to inciting hatred against a protected group. I don't believe saying there was no Holocaust quite meets that standard.

The cartoons were entirely innocuous, and would have caused no fuss if aimed at any group less violently sensitive than Muslims.

[gerryhatrick]

The cartoons were entirely innocuous, and would have caused no fuss if aimed at any group less violently sensitive than Muslims.

What about all the non-violent protests we've seen? Do you have free reign to generalize all Muslims as "violently sensitive" now because of the actions of a few?

The cartoons were innocuous to you, perhaps.

For racist anti-immigrant folks they're a godsend. They're loving the opportunity to insult Muslims.

[Leafless]

gerryhatrick

You wrote- " For racist anti-immigrant folk they're a godsend. They're loving the oppurtunity to insult Muslims."

What makes you think these cartoons are limited to "racist anti-immigrant folk?

These cartoons reflect the actions of extremist Muslims dictated by a religion with political leanings that extend well beyond the scope of a domesticated religion.

These cartoons are supported by many people around the world who feel terrorist who kill under the flag of Islam have no right to do this.

Terrorist actions are represented by more than a "few" and more than a "few" who protested violently and more than a "few" who protested in support of condemnation of these cartoons in countries around the world.

If Muzlims don't appreciate being criticized from events being directly spawned from their religion, then simply KEEP THEIR RELIGION TO THEMSLVES and don't engulf the world with their aggressive beliefs.

[Argus]

The cartoons were entirely innocuous, and would have caused no fuss if aimed at any group less violently sensitive than Muslims.

What about all the non-violent protests we've seen? Do you have free reign to generalize all Muslims as "violently sensitive" now because of the actions of a few?

Given that it seems all the Muslims we have seen or heard of demand that it be made illegal to make such cartoons then yes, I feel safe in saying all Muslims, or at least, Muslims as a general body of people, are violently sensitive towards mockery directed at their ridiculous religion.

The cartoons were innocuous to you, perhaps.

They were innocuous to everyone other than Muslims.

For racist anti-immigrant folks they're a godsend. They're loving the opportunity to insult Muslims.

In all actuality, I think they were a godsend in that regard simply because they showed an awful lot of people just how violent and barbaric the Muslim world is.

[gerryhatrick]

gerryhatrick

You wrote- " For racist anti-immigrant folk they're a godsend. They're loving the oppurtunity to insult Muslims."

What makes you think these cartoons are limited to "racist anti-immigrant folk?

Huh? I never said they were limited to anyone. I said they were a godsend to such folk.

These cartoons reflect the actions of extremist Muslims dictated by a religion with political leanings that extend well beyond the scope of a domesticated religion.

Huh? Extremism is dictated by Islam? No, don't think so.

[gerryhatrick]

For racist anti-immigrant folks they're a godsend. They're loving the opportunity to insult Muslims.

In all actuality, I think they were a godsend in that regard simply because they showed an awful lot of people just how violent and barbaric the Muslim world is.

I think you just made my point.

They were innocuous to everyone other than Muslims.

They weren't innocuous to me, so you're wrong.

[geoffrey]

They were innocuous to everyone other than Muslims.

They weren't innocuous to me, so you're wrong.

You are personally offended by the depiction of Muhammed? Thats an awful funny view for someone that isn't Muslim. Your telling me you'd feel guilty drawing a picture of Muhammed, even for non-publication?

I'd more likelly assume that you found the display of the cartoons offensive, and not the cartoons themself. If I'm wrong, well, all the power to you I guess?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Are we allowed to say that now? Or make cartoons about it?

Hey Western Standard, how about this for a cartoon:

Show a couple of Jews sipping champagne and eating caviar in the lobby of a human rights museum. One is whispering to the other "Great building and good eats, huh? All we had to do is invent the holocaust!"

That's illegal in this Country. I'll wait for the knock on the door now I guess.

No. That would be a submission to the cartoon contest currently being held in Iran.

[Martial Shadow]

It is illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany and Austria. Anyone else in the world has the ability to deny that such an event took place. However, given the mountains of evidence, one might wonder at your motivation.

[Drea]

Here's some links for you..

Not all the same opinions I might add, ALSO, I don't necessarily agree -- just letting folks see what's out there regarding Holocaust Denial

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

The only opinion I have on the subject is:

If I am allowed to "slam" Muslims

then

I should also be allowed to "slam" Jews.

If it is illegal to "slam" Jews, then it should be also illegal to "slam" Muslims.

[Martial Shadow]

Drea- You don't see a difference? Let's make it a bit more clear.

1- Depicting the prophet Muhammed (pbuh), already an insult to Islam, in a way that is degrading.

2- Denying a historically verifiable event, the Holocaust.

If someone were to draw a picture a Moses urinating on the 10 Commandments or eating children, it would be equivalently insulting. In fact, several Arab propaganda posters depict "Jewish Vampires" feasting on children.

Denying the Holocaust would be like denying the Crusades or denying the bombing of Hiroshima. If you want to be stupid, you're allowed to be (except in Germany and Austria)- but you can not TEACH it or spread HATE with it.

MS

[Drea]

Point is it's (at the very least) frowned upon in this country to say

"Jews are all money grubbing, power hungry elitists who are ruining the world, we should erradicate them"

It's not frowned upon to say

"muslims are all hate riddled Islamic freaks who are ruining the world, we should erradicate them"

It should be frowned upon IMO.

NO, I am NOT saying the cartoon is the SAME as denying the holocaust -- but do you get my meaning?

If you tolerate one religion, you must tolerate them all. If you ban one religion, you must ban them all.

[margrace]

I agree Drea, religion is at the bottom of all our problems, it is an excuse to kill others. And all in the name of one God

[Argus]

For racist anti-immigrant folks they're a godsend. They're loving the opportunity to insult Muslims.

In all actuality, I think they were a godsend in that regard simply because they showed an awful lot of people just how violent and barbaric the Muslim world is.

I think you just made my point.

They were innocuous to everyone other than Muslims.

They weren't innocuous to me, so you're wrong.

You are hardly the standard by which one would judge such things.

[Argus]

Here's some links for you..

Not all the same opinions I might add, ALSO, I don't necessarily agree -- just letting folks see what's out there regarding Holocaust Denial

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

The only opinion I have on the subject is:

If I am allowed to "slam" Muslims

then

I should also be allowed to "slam" Jews.

If it is illegal to "slam" Jews, then it should be also illegal to "slam" Muslims.

It is perfectly legal to comment on the behaviour, statements and actions of Muslims as a general body, just as it is to comment on the behaviour, statements and actions of Jews. The comparison is complicated by the fact that most of the behaviour and statements which comes out of the Muslim world which draws criticism is a direct reflection of religious values - generally violence or the threat of violence arising from a rigid interpretation of the Koran. Most of the condemnation of Jews, however, is dishonest and/or unfair, and arises out of paranoid delusions and bizarre conspiracy theories. Thus almost all criticism of Jews - as a group - comes from Nazis and bigots.

[Argus]

Point is it's (at the very least) frowned upon in this country to say

"Jews are all money grubbing, power hungry elitists who are ruining the world, we should erradicate them"

It's not frowned upon to say

"muslims are all hate riddled Islamic freaks who are ruining the world, we should erradicate them"

Both are equally illegal. I suggest you examine the law before speaking again on this matter.

Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to:

* advocate genocide

* publicly incite hatred

* wilfully promote hatred against an "identifiable group."

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by:

* colour

* race

* religion

* ethnic origin

Note that these are not applicable to private conversations.

[newbie]

It's not illegal. It was only illegal in that one case because it was a teacher telling his students it was true.

Remember this guy:

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/zundel.asp...d=2&item=zundel

[gerryhatrick]

They weren't innocuous to me, so you're wrong.

You are hardly the standard by which one would judge such things.

Well, I've proved your claim to be wrong.

Given that I guess I can understand your angst.

[geoffrey]

It's not illegal. It was only illegal in that one case because it was a teacher telling his students it was true.

Remember this guy:

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/zundel.asp...d=2&item=zundel

Sure I do. I actually don't care what he says, its not like many people take him seriously besides those already sick in the head.

I don't think he was ever found guilty in Canada, and thats why we sent him to Germany where its illegal to say boo at a Jew (understandably).

[Army Guy]

Argus:

Yes section 318 and 319 of the criminal code does make certain restrictions on what you say, it also provides some pretty big loop holes as well. Those loop holes are stated below.

Under the Criminal Code, you could have legally made such statements if any of the following conditions had applied:

-he promoted hatred in a private conversation by stating facts he believed to be true

-he made the statements honestly and was just trying to express an opinion upon a religious subject

-he reasonably believed the statements were true, and the statements were relevant to a subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit

-he was trying to point out things that tended to promote hatred towards a group, but only to help remove those hateful feelings

My Webpage

[Montgomery Burns]

Are we allowed to say that now? Or make cartoons about it?

Hey Western Standard, how about this for a cartoon:

Show a couple of Jews sipping champagne and eating caviar in the lobby of a human rights museum. One is whispering to the other "Great building and good eats, huh? All we had to do is invent the holocaust!"

That's illegal in this Country. I'll wait for the knock on the door now I guess.

Claiming that the Jews invented the Holocaust is extremely insensitive. It happened. Everyone knows that. About 6 million were killed.

I wonder how many have seen these caricatures. I saw all 12 and only 3 were mean-spirited. They referenced Islam's penchance for suicide bombers. Not "politically correct" maybe, but unquestionably true. The other 9 were harmless. They exaggerated the length of Mohammed's nose. Big deal. That is common in caricatures. Mulroney and Leno with the big chin; Letterman with a big gap between his teeth; Nixon with the ski-slope nose, and Jimmy Carter--all teeth.

Many news items don't mention that some Danish imams made up 3 false cartoons and toured the ME to stir up trouble. Islam has a problem with these radical imams.

At least the Iraqis didn't go nuts, so maybe there's hope yet for the Muslim world.