The Shotgun Blog
« Colleen Klein source revealed | Main | Whose values will be imposed? »
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
I Thought Some of the Cartoons Were Funny
Let me make something really clear: I thought some of the infamous Danish cartoons were funny and pithy (especially these two, which I posted early on during the controversy). They lampooned the beliefs of some people in ways that are common for editorial cartoons. I'm sure some people were upset with the cartoons. That happens. If it didn't happen, editorial cartoons would not be published. What upsets me is that
- nobody objected when the cartoons were published in Egypt last fall;
- there is good evidence that several ridiculous cartoons were added to the initial 12 by radical Danish Imams in their attempt to stir up opposition to the Danish publication of the cartoons;
- the resulting mob violence has been so clearly anti-freedom and anti-Western;
- so many political and religious leaders of the West have fallen all over themselves to apologize and appease the violent protesters.
As Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder wrote in the American Spectator,
Ironically, the cartoonists were not even condemning Islam, they were merely creating a satire of a terrorist. They weren't insulting their religion, they were satirizing a fanatic. But, the Muslims have decided that there are no laws, limits, or boundaries that apply to their behavior. They not only have the right to take your life, they now have the right to rob you of your freedom of expression.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is reacting to the Muslims with an amazing cowardice. Instead of a collective fury, we are pleading for forgiveness, and promising not to offend them with any more cartoons. Could anything be more perverted? The same people who are not offended by suicide bombers and terrorist killings, murder, mayhem, and destruction around the world have now decided that a cartoon... "OY VEY IS THIS TERRIBLE!"
So let me repeat. I thought some of the cartoons were funny and pithy. They deserved publication on their own merits and not just in the interest of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. And if you disagree with me, start your own blog and write your own analysis there. That's what freedom of speech is about.
Posted by EclectEcon on February 21, 2006 in Current Affairs, International Affairs, Media, Western Standard | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83475a28a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I Thought Some of the Cartoons Were Funny:
Comments
A friend of mine pastor found the virgins one funny.
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2006-02-21 8:28:51 AM
>I thought some of the cartoons were funny and pithy. They deserved publication on their own merits and not just in the interest of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. And if you disagree with me, start your own blog and write your own analysis there. That's what freedom of speech is about.
Actually the Danes who published them and the majority of rest of the world who saw them do not disagree with you.
Face it tou all the majority of the world saw it and they did not demonstrate against them.
Only likely 30 percent of the people rather opposed the cartoons.
The major error was that the Muslims was that they made the cartons more popular by protesting any others to see them and next more people became inclined to see them.
Remember also that we had all those initial protests from those liberals, Jews about the Mel Gibson film about Jesus that insured it too next was to be a big box office financial success.
Anyway the Muslims protest was basically still and false excuse to wrongfully push Islam down other people's throats and to divert the others from seeing what the bad Muslims too often now are really like.
Posted by: paul | 2006-02-21 9:51:15 AM
I totally agree. The claim by Muslims that these cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad were an "insult" and "blasphemous" to Islam is nothing but a red-herring at worst, and a lie at best.
It has now been discovered that the popular Egyptian newspaper Al Fagr printed these very cartoons back in October of 2005, during Ramadan of all things! Where was the outrage from the good Muslims back then? Where was the outcry from the Islamic clerics at that time? Two Standards in Islam? Hypocrites and liars I say!
Apparently Muslims can "insult" their own Prophet but non-Muslims can't. No, there was no insult with these cartoons, but perhaps the truth of the cartoons lampooning the violence we all see in Islam is what really hurt Muslims. The images wee saw this last week, of tens of thousands of marauding Muslims destroying and killing simply varifies this truth.
Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-21 10:11:37 AM
Hush little puppies, your 15 minutes of fame are clearly over. Your rag has remained just that, a worthless rag headed for bankruptcy.
The publishing of the Muslim cartoons indicates how desperate this rag is to attract readership. You published them just to spike your circulation numbers but it backfired. Even the shop in my office building downtown refused to carry it as it was an INSULT - not freedom of speech - just an abuse of the freedoms we so willingly defend.
I agree, the fanatics overseas cloud the peaceful demonstrations and economic boycotts, however, this is an indication of last resort. Just like in any religion, there are fanatics that inspire the crowds to act a certain way (ie: Christians and Bush, the Catholic church condemning Kerry for his stance on abortion etc...) The truth must remain and that is this rag didn't publish the insulting Jesus cartoons but chose to use the Muslim ones instead. More likely done to incite hatred in candidate country Turkey but that also backfired as the Turks protested as peacefully as the Canadian Muslims.
You people, this rag, are a disgrace to the tolerances and dignity of Canadians and Muslims.
Ezra, the self-loathing Jew can spin this contempt any way you want but in the long run, true Canadians know that this is just extreme right wing propaganda and drivel.
Posted by: Mike | 2006-02-21 10:45:44 AM
Mike, have you done ANY reading on the background of the cartoons, both real and fake, and the timeline of the "spontaneous" protests, or are you just happy to be stuck on stupid?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-02-21 10:57:17 AM
Wow, even the shop in Mike's office building downtown refused to carry it? Jeez, I didn't know that until now. I may have to rethink.
Mike says "...it was an INSULT - not freedom of speech - just an abuse of the freedoms we so willingly defend." Well Mike, as far as I can see, you're not willingly defending freedom of speech at all. You're defending freedom FROM insult. But wait, you're not even defending that really, judging by your contributions here, especially that last one. I'm beginning to wonder if you have some hate issues of your own.
And by the way, we're all "true" Canadians... you, me, and everyone else here, whether we agree or not. Regards.
Posted by: Karl | 2006-02-21 11:10:26 AM
>>You people, this rag, are a disgrace to the tolerances and dignity of Canadians and Muslims.
There is a toilet for such output and now go and use it. You realy need to do so now too.
Clearly 70 percent of people do not agree with you, and do not think the Muslims are decent, tolerable, nice people but they do not kill you for disagreeing with them too
With such false Muslim PR you spew out here you are only making it worse for anyone to respect any Muslims too.
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-02-21 11:12:52 AM
Mike
Cloth, remnant, scrap, tatter, hankie, shred... Purchase a thesaurus and watch your writing come to life!
Posted by: Simian | 2006-02-21 11:29:09 AM
Those Cartoons you published were so funny HA HA HA, especially when all those people got upset and buildings got burned down all over the world, you know just like when you cause an accident you just love to see all that death and destruction, it is SO SO Good. Freedom of bashing and Alienation is what this magazine is promoting. Way to Go! You get the Gold Medal!
Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-21 11:36:37 AM
Kathryn, You pose an interesting question and Mike has not answered. I guess he thinks it was a retorical question you asked, like the MSM try to do, you have 'set the premise'. Mike has the oppertunity to defend himself. We are all waiting....
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-02-21 12:04:07 PM
I wonder which cowardly and intimidated newspaper or magazine Mike works for?
Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-21 12:11:42 PM
boy oh boy. mike, you obviously do not like these cartoons or the west. by "west" i mean wither the west of canada or the entire western world. probably the entire western world. i think you are a pc thug. one of those canadians who think they know whats best for the rest of us. your kind only comes out from under its collective rocks when THEY see or hear something that they think "ordinary" canadians should not hear or see.
they complain and moan and gnash their teeth all the while screaming "offensive, offensive" to some group or another. as soon as this happens i have taught my children to expend whatever resources necessary (within reason) to find a copy of the offensive material. this is so that they may see for themselves. so that people of your kind, ilk or whatever wont decide for them what they should see and not see.
however people like you realize that there are places that will publish things like this and out come the name calling which you have demonstrated here.
take a hint. nobody cares what you and the rest of the pc thugs think. the liberals lost. they will lose again when the inevitable election is called.
the pendulum of "correctness" is swinging back our way. your services are not wanted or required.
love this paper and thanks to ezra for publishing the cartoons.
Posted by: rob | 2006-02-21 12:15:12 PM
Don't bother Mike. He's a good dhimmi-in-training and doesn't want to lose his place in line to be decapitated, for "peace" of course.
Posted by: wharold | 2006-02-21 12:32:14 PM
Mike right, Publishing Cartoons Bad idea, very bad idea, Ezra Not Smart, WS not wise, most people here blood thirsty not nice, when you cut my head off here please go gently.
Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-21 1:01:35 PM
One of the cartoons was very funny, in that "so true that it hurts way". It was the one where two women are completely covered up except for little rectangle openings showing eyes which seem to express either fear or shock; in the foreground, an angry looking elderly gentlement, perhaps an imam, with an angry look on his face is wielding a sword. His face is exposed, except for his eyes which are covered by a black rectangle the exact shape and size of openings the women looked through.
It managed to convey both the difficulty of being a woman under the thumb of oppression, as well as the sheer ludicrous blindness of fanatacism.
Of course, you'd really have to see it...
Posted by: EBD | 2006-02-21 1:21:50 PM
Alexandra Wagner is Right as well:
It’s interesting to note that many of the people who support the printing of the cartoons also took the opportunity to make very sweeping and inappropriate judgements of the Muslim community in Canada. No doubt this says a great deal about themselves and their ability to respect others.
In terms of the cartoons themselves, it has clearly never been about freedom of speech. It has also NEVER been suggested by any representative of the Muslim community that people have no right to comment on Islam, current affairs, or even to actually portray the prophet Muhammad.
Clearly, what has upset Muslims was the decision to create an image of him as a terrorist, which in a bigger picture, makes the whole religion based on terrorism. Any sensible, knowledgeable and educated person knows that is not true.
We have freedom of speech in this country – but we have been asked to temper that freedom with respect for others and their beliefs. Portraying Mu hammed as a terrorist, or someone who would tolerate terrorism is WRONG – period. It is factually incorrect, it is incredibly irresponsible, and is profoundly disrespectful to Muslim people, whether Canadian or otherwise.
If a cartoonist in this country chose to take the most horrible stereotypes of a religion or ethnic group and create an image that implied that ALL of the adherents were bad, or deviant or evil – it would not be allowed.
That is why people like Ernst Zundel are not allowed to peddle their wares in this country. His freedom of speech is eclipsed by our need to be protected by hate. This issue is NOT about freedom of speech.
Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-21 1:31:44 PM
Of course it's about freedom of speech. If we're going to continue democracy, we have to take the good with the bad and with the ugly. Otherwise, the Charter becomes meaningless.
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-02-21 1:45:00 PM
Freedom of speech AND/or freedom of religions is still not a valid excuse for any Liberal, United Church, Muslim and Evangelicals now too to wrongfully abuse someone else.
But I am sorry that the Muslims feel ashamed, dirty, abused when many people do confront them now in their many different ways about their own poor acts too, it cannot be helped, repentance and the related necessary surgery of telling the whole truth even to them can be quite painful.
HERE IS ANOTHER UNDENIABLE TRUTH
Public exposure by the news media and prosecution of the guilty person(S) by the justice ministers is still the best approach for all persons, the GUILTY ones included and is a on going necessary part of life.
(Heb 12:5 KJV) And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Posted by: PAUL | 2006-02-21 2:04:08 PM
So, Colin, you are saying that "...what has upset Muslims was the decision to create an image of him as a terrorist..." Interesting. That is the only image that upset them? Then why did the riots not take place in Denmark in October instead of waiting for 4 months? Why were 3 more cartoons needed to drum up resistance? When you choose to ignore these facts, then you are capitulating to their jihad. The original 8 cartoons were not particularly offensive. The riots, death threats, and violence are.
Some muslims are trying to charge the Western Standard with hate crimes. These muslims should instead be protesting the violence of their fellow muslims overseas.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-02-21 2:14:29 PM
Hi,
Freedom of speech should not include the right to gross people out. There are some universal sensibilities, and some regional/local sensibilities. The islam cartoons are news because of the internet. They were innocent comment in the original Danish printed circulation.
That being said, it seems that the sanctimonious CanWest Global company, having lampooned muslims this morning in their Vancouver Sun cartoon, considers it perfectly ethical to slag catholics in a most gross manner in an internationally distributed program.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10369513 Perhaps if New Zealand catholics had stormed and burned the Canadian embassy things would be seen in perspective.
I am neither muslim nor catholic. No, I do not wish to see that program on Canadian CanWest television "just to understand the issue". I would be grossed out. I did appreciate your publication of those cartoons. This illustrates the cunumdrum.
Posted by: Chris | 2006-02-21 2:31:21 PM
>Portraying Mud hammed as a terrorist, or someone who would tolerate terrorism is WRONG – period. It is factually incorrect, it is incredibly irresponsible, and is profoundly disrespectful to Muslim people, whether Canadian or otherwise.<
Moonbat, grab a Qur'an and have a read before you make statements like the one above. Where do you think the terrorists get their manifesto to kill like they do in the name of Allah? Although it is certainly ridiculous to assume all Muslims are terrorists it just as ridiculous to assume Islam or the Qur'an does not portray terrorism and violence.
If Muslims don't like their religion being scrutinized that is their right, just as it is my right to scrutinize it. If they don't like it boo hoo. Don't export it to my country then.
You have been all over this blog yakking off about things you know nothing about, without a single fact to back it up. As has been mentioned many times Islam is a religion, it is separate from the Muslim people. It is absolutely open to debate and even criticism like any other religion without the debate being termed by PC fools like you as racist or hateful.
I know the likes of you will never be swayed by common sense or facts. Check out this site. http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ If you don't like it, there are others, just do a search.
Remember this quote,
"A person reveals his character by nothing so clearly as the joke he resents." Or perhaps another, "Men show their characters in nothing more clearly than in what they think laughable."
Get a life dude.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-02-21 3:01:06 PM
Just the immature ramblings of people like Mike go to show that no thought goes into their attack... whereas those who support freedom of speech have thought a lot about it and know exactly why they do.
Posted by: Heather Cook | 2006-02-21 3:57:05 PM
Say, I can't draw. But if I drew a stick man
and called it Mohammed, would I get into
trouble? How about if I named a mountain
"Prophet Mohammed Mountain?"
In Iran, they have re named the Danish.
It is now "A Rose of the Prophet Mohammed."
If I baked a cookie in the shape of a croissant
and called it "Rancho Grande of the Prophet Mohammed" would that be ok? I am sure there
is some good advice for me regarding this matter.
Posted by: Shroom | 2006-02-21 4:13:27 PM
I never cease to be amazed at those who don't know the difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of blows. If they keep on supporting terrorism they may learn it the hard way some day.
When are the PC social engineers and thought police going to see their favorite weapon - the "hate speech" laws - SCRAPPED? It is no coincidence that the most hateful speech is perpetrated by the PC Brigade!
Speaking of funny cartoons.......There is good one on Bill Clinton in the Jerusalem Post today.
Posted by: Javahead | 2006-02-21 4:46:33 PM
Who would have been offended more if the bomb-head cartoon had been labeled "the Anti-christ," Muslims or Christians?
Posted by: truthsayer | 2006-02-21 6:28:37 PM
Colin - You seem to be misinformed by comparing the cartoons to Zundel's writing. Zundel is a froot-loop - he's denying something that is supported by empirical fact. The cartoons represent an opinion satirizing observed behaviour.
There would be no small difference between the two.
And yes, Colin, the issue is precisely about freedom of speech. There is no moral or legal requirement in a free secular democracy to be "nice", or to have good taste. In many instances theses cartoons were *not* being published out of fear of *violent* reprisal, which in and of itself provides a reasonable motivation to publish them. Showing a bully you are not afraid of it is the first step in defanging it.
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-21 6:34:17 PM
Colin - I'm also curious as to who has asked me to temper my speech with respect for others? I didn't get that memo. Perhaps you can enlighten?
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-21 6:36:59 PM
Nice to see the CBC has rediscovered the word 'terrorist'. Odd how they weren't referring to the cartoon of a bomb in Mohammed's turban as depicting him as a 'militant'.
I guess in the future when someone blows themself up in a busload of women and children they will have no qualms about calling him a terrorist.
Posted by: Virgil | 2006-02-21 6:52:44 PM
Prometheus,
My god man, Colin and his left-wing, group-think, tolerant buddies have deemed it to be so! Where have you been! How dare you have the audacity to exercise your right in a free country to disagree with them and stand up for yourself and what you believe in. Shocking. ;-)
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-02-21 7:42:03 PM
Deepblue - So you got the memo, then?
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-21 7:54:11 PM
Prometheus,
Yep, I got it alright, and it causes me a deep burning pain every time I think about it. I see by the poll today only 30% have their heads firmly up their posterior and are siding with our friend Colin. Still to many. How can so many in this so called modern society be so thick? I look down south and the left there has become completely unhinged. It would seem it is no different here. Truly frightening.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-02-21 8:07:53 PM
Deepblue - Honestly, I think the problem stems from the education system in both countries. The skills of logic and reason are not taught, and neither are the virtues of the Western secular democracy. I don't know if this is due to school boards or Provincial governments setting curricula, or to a disproportionate number of teachers leaning way left, but *education* is nowhere to be found. It's basically left leaning indoctrination.
Universities aren't much better for being a forum for debate (case in point, the recent debacle over the cartoons - in a University publication should be a given just to provoke debate).
Depending on your major, an education on logic and formal debating is something you really have to give yourself. Too many disciplines accept the PC doctrine as an article of faith, and promote their own through to PHd status without
any real rigor.
I honestly believe this was predicted in the late 1800's by Neitchze, although he was a little too pessimistic when he stated "another generation of readers and the written word itself will begin to stink".
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-21 8:49:49 PM
Nothing quite as inspiring as a couple of conservatives, secure on their home turf, congratulating each other on their essential, well, rightness.
"Hey, Homer, ain't them left-wingers so PC that it makes you puke."
" Yup, Jethro, but there ain't no darn way that we're going to let 'em infringe on our freedom of speech by actually criticizing what we say. It's our right to spit on muslims, cause they're all evil terrorists!"
"You said it, Homer, they is, every last one of them. And them lefties, they're just lining up to bow down and get their heads cut off, damn fool dhimmis."
You bet, Jethro. Good thing we read Nietzsche. Or at least what Ann Coulter or David Frum wrote about what he said. Oh look, here come Remi and Paul, babbling scripture. Now, that's some free speech we can get behind!"
All this bleating about freedom of speech and political correctness might be a little more persuasive if a)it wasn't accompanied by vague suggestions that we should round up everyone who believes in Allah and hit them with sticks (cuz they is evil followers of an evil ideology) and b) if those bleating "freedom of speech" had half a clue what the term means.
Anybody care to point me to the government agency that was going to use the power of the state to prevent the publication of these cartoons? The court that was going to grant an injunction to stop anyone from running them? The angry mob that descended on the press, even? No? Didn't think so.
Seems to what happened here is that a number of publications chose not to run a bunch of fairly pedestrian cartoons. No duress. No government pressure. Just a series of individual judgments, motivated by a number of factors: respect for a minority religious community which explained in a peaceful way that the cartoons attacked the root of its faith; a editorial decision that they weren't necessary to tell the story of riots half a world away; a belief that they own cartoonist could do a better job, a desire to keep the sidewalks in front of their offices clear of pickets.
Meanwhile, you lot are whipping yourselves into a frenzy, convincing yourself that the entire Muslim world was holding a gun to our collective heads and that if the cartoons don't run in every publication in the Western world then The Terrorists Win. Which is just silly.
So Ezra, never one to shy away from the spotlight, seizes the moment and runs the cartoons in his little magazine. He gets to go on the MSM (books could be written on the curious and conflicted relationship the blogocracy has with the MSM, but I digress) and sell some subscriptions, all while wearing a cardboard belt with a big buckle that used to read "Pig-Racing Champion" and now reads "Freedom of the Press Champion."
"Everyone else is scared," says Ezra, with not a whit of evidence but with all the enthusiasm that once led him to declare himself a Stock-a-holic. "Only I am brave. It is our duty to run these cartoons." After every appearance, he goes fishing for compliments on this blog and you lot oblige, praising him for running the cartoons, damning the Muslims for being Muslims.
Well, guess what, not everybody agrees with Ezra's decision to run the cartoons. Some, not unreasonably, think that Ezra and company are exploiting the situation for fame and profit. Others think that they're pandering to the baser instincts of the Homer and Jethros of our country. So they exercise their free speech. They come here and take you wingnuts on on your home turf. They criticize the western standard.
And what reception do they get from you deep thinkers on the Shotgun? Well, abuse -- although that's neither unexpected nor unrequited. But also the ridiculous suggestion that anyone who thinks publication of a few cartoons is a bad idea is against freedom of speech. Now, this gross display of ignorance, this collossal failure of logic isn't entirely surprising, certainly not when there are people here who think sedition laws should be employed against peaceful protesters simply because the protesters are Muslim and can't be trusted (how very fascist-able). But it is disappointing, given that there are flickers of reason to be found here from time to time.
And the WS? How do they respond to criticism? By making noises about libel suits and whining about impending human rights complaints.
Now, anybody with even a passing familiarity with defamation law will recognize that they are a very effective way for public figures - politicians, businessmen and, yes, magazine publishers -- to silence criticism. Defamation suits are expensive, time-consuming and difficult to defend and have the practical effect of silencing the defendant for the duration -- often several years -- of the action. But we realize that individuals have a right to their good reputation and, for a variety of historical reasons, the common law has given them powerful tools to protect that reputation.
Defamations laws, however, don't protect groups. You can smear any religion, race or creed and no civil cause of action will lie against you. What we do have is human rights codes and hate propaganda laws, both of which, in practical terms, set the bar far far higher than in defamation law.
But to you lot even these minor limits are a terrible burden. "Waddya mean we can't say that Islam is a gutter religion populated by terrorists and pedophiles and that its followers should be driven into the ocean with pitchforks and torches? What about our freedom of speech?"
Well freedom of speech has its limits and sometimes testing those limits involves legal proceedings and the attendant costs. Ask the cartoonist who drew Bill Vander Zalm pulling the wings off a fly - and was sued. Ask the reporters who write about politicians in conflict of interest or businessmen of shady dealings -- and end up spending their days in discoveries as the legal bills mount.
If someone does file a human rights complaint against WS for running the cartoons, I expect we'll hear more bleating from you lot about freedom of speech and the "Stalinist" human rights tribunals. And we'll hear it from people who haven't hesitated to use the law -- defamation law and otherwise -- to shut down speech themselves.
Me, I'll be watching. And laughing.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-21 10:31:39 PM
Mike, in reference to your comments,
<
Let me guess, you're from Ontario right?
<
Speaking of insults, Oh Perfect one,
<< Ezra, the self-loathing Jew..
So, are you the hypocritical expert on "Self-Loathing"?
Rhetorical question, just curious.
Ceebee
Posted by: CeeBee | 2006-02-21 10:33:57 PM
That was a lot of hot air...did a chinook just blow in ? I'm very glad that Canadians have someone like truewest to keep all us 'redneck folks' in line and just explain everything to us so well. Bless you truewest, you're an insipid, I mean inspiration to all of us 'rednecks'....someone we can aspire to be more like...blah blah blah
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-02-21 10:36:23 PM
MarkAlta,
I did it all for you pal. You're an inspiration. Now go kiss Ezra's ass. Again.
I see he's feeling insecure about not being Freedom to Read's poster boy, having been elbowed out of the spotlight by some lesbian bookstore which actually spent money - a lot of money - to address an actual government limit on freedom of speech.
Ah, fame is so fickle.
What a putz.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-21 11:05:38 PM
Truewest - And there is nothing more inspiring than having a left-wing windbag like you confirming exactly what we were discussing above. The Muslim terrorists I can understand, it is easy to see where they foster their hate.
It's you home grown bomb throwers who pose the biggest threat to this country, or any country you get your hooks into. Personally I will just let Islam speak for itself, I don't think we are done hearing from them.
As for you, I will simply tune you out as I usually do, you don't need any help making an ass of yourself. Or perhaps I will exercise my right to free speech and insult you. As you point out it is my right.
Either way, you can count on the fact I am laughing at you, and the likes of you, and could care less what you think.
Posted by: deepblue | 2006-02-22 1:02:54 AM
Truewest.
Start your day with some bran. It helps prevent foul moods in the evening.
I think the point to this thread is the underlying assumption, and yes it is an assumption and may be false, that the PC left wing crowd is very selective on the type od free speech they promote. "Mohammed cartoons bad. Skin mags good."
Personally, I support both (does that make my "Jethro" or "Homer"...?). There is are several well documented cases in Canada of CCRA (or whatever their name is this week) censoring material at the border when it involved consentual adults cavorting in vairous ways.
That's wrong.
The *worry* about the cartoon publication is that an appeal to a human rights tribunal or under the criminal code's Hate Propaganda section would be successful in yeilding sanctions on the Western Standard et al.
That would also be wrong.
The message here, I thing, was there is a certain amount of accepted hipocracy in the MSM and the left leaning populace. The argument I put forward is that it stems from the nature of our education systems and biases that are inherent in it.
Seriously - does that make me a "redneck", or a critic?
Dissapointing. Your previous posts were of a far better caliber than this, which amounts to a prolonged ad hominem attack.
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-22 1:09:38 AM
Truewest - Instead of watching and laughing, how about providing some evidence/commentary as to either:
a) why you think an HR Tribunal or S. 319 charge would have merit
or
b) why it would not?
Or perhaps a discussion about the merits of S.319 being on the books when the manifest effects of any actions contraindicated under the section would be covered in other areas of the code anyway? For example, I can't incite a riot whether it's insanity is directed towards an indentifiable group or not. So is there a purpose other than collaring free speech? (I honestly don't know - opinions welcome).
Yes there are some particularly vitriolic opinions about Islam being posted here, and perhaps these are not without some merit based on the high profile conduct of that culture in the last decade. I would suggest that in an open forum, that evidence to the contrary should be what is put forward to silence or educate critics - not a redneck label.
And as for reading Nietchze (which you appear to equate to Ann Coutler, bah), some of us rednecks have also studied Marx, Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Kirkegaard, Dennet, Kant, the Bible, the Koran, the Tao te Ching, Hayek and the TV Guide. It is a mistake to think a strong lean to the right is driven by a lack of education - but then you know this is the kind of set error that gets people in logical trouble all the time.
And finally, as it is dreadfully late, what do you think the goals of terrorists really are? Is it an excuse to blow things up as there are a rash number of pyromaniacs in some parts of the world? Or could it possibly be that the goal is to militantly enforce a world view that does not support individual freedoms? To paraphrase your statement - the former would be "silly."
And yes, they win a little bit each time as a society we stop doing what we were doing before the whole issue became front and centre.
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-22 1:59:23 AM
Ah, truewest - true-to-form. Always asserting, smugly, your superiority (I'm beginning to conclude that's the reason for your dislike of Ezra; you claim he's publishing to 'prove his superiority' - when it's you, who are posting, to prove your superiority'.)
At any rate - you assert that there was 'no duress' not to publish the cartoons and no government pressure'. Don't you think that the burning of your embassies in Islamic countries is a strong action of 'duress' to inhibit publication? Threat's of death by gov'ts against your editors??
A key problem with your mental imagery, truewest, is that you seem to think we are still living in the 19th century of separate nation-states, whose thousands of miles distance from each other meant actual isolation from each other. We don't live in the steam-engine age; our world is now an intimately networked unity, and what happens in one part - directly affects another part.
You state - a 'minority religious community which explained in a peaceful way that the cartoons attacked the root of its faith'. Have you seen the cartoons?
They didn't attack any roots of their faith. They attacked the aberration of their faith, which has been taken over by extremists, and is being used to justify mass murder, terrorism and an agenda of hatred towards other peoples. The cartoons were asking these 'peaceful minorities' to openly, publicly, stand up and reject this take-over of their religion. That HAS to be done; the moderate Muslims have to take charge of their religion, take it back from the extremists, and stop the bloodshed.
You? You ignore this violence by saying ' - Oh, it's happening over there. Who cares.'
Do you know who cares? We ought to - because it is amoral to stand by and watch other people being murdered in commuter trains and turn our backs because 'it's over there'. If it happened here, would you want the rest of the world to, as you do, yawn..and ignore it?
Pig-racing champion? I'm not sure what that means. Please explain.
Your 'gross display of ignorance' about the crisis within the Islamic religion and your 'colossal failure of logic' about the causal effects of this crisis (I'm using your phrases as I'm sure you are comfortable with such imagery)...is tantamount to 'putting one's head in the sand'. That happened before, most recently, with the rise of the Third Reich.
The crisis in the Islamic socioreligious infrastructure is real, truewest, and has to be addressed - by the Muslims, both here and everywhere. Their attempts to externalize this internal conflict must be rejected by the West.
That's a dangerous tactic - to deny that the real problem is internal (within the unevolved Islamic sociocultural and ideological system) and attempt to focus all causality for its problems on an external force, the 'prejudiced and capitalist and colonial and whatever evil, West. That's false. But, that's what you are doing, by also ignoring the problems inherent in the Islamic ideology...
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-22 7:24:01 AM
Thanks for all the great comments Folks! You have convinced me that my perception is warped and wrong. You have persuaded me with some of these great points.....OR have you.....
1. Freedom of speech is ok even when it upsets many of the people in countries we are at war with.
2. Even with 1. It is OK to pick apart the religion of a whole visible minority here in Canada and the world even when they are already been beat down, jailed and tortured since 9/11.
3. With 3. We should still be able to continue to do 1 and 2 because we have the right as freedom loving Canadians.
We should not be trying to promote any anger against any group. Lets not crystallize the anger against an invisible enemy against entire Islam.
If any of you would like me to draw a cartoon of you, please send me your picture I can use it to make my cartoon and easily post on the WWW free of charge. Don't worry I will keep it very tasteful and very funny.
Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-22 9:00:18 AM
Colin - your comments are without either factual veracity or logical validity.
1. Canada is not at war with any country. Did you know that? Would you please inform us which countries Canada is at war with?
If, if, we were at war with a particular country, as we were with Germany in WWII, do you seriously think it valid that we should refrain from making comments that would upset the people in that country?? Why?
Freedom of speech is necessary at all times. War, no war. At all times. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether/not we offend anyone. Freedom of speech is essentially saying: 'This topic must be debated. Let us debate it'. Without freedom of speech, we are moving thought into dogma. Is that what you prefer?
Please explain how the 'visible minority' here in Canada and the world are being 'beat down, tortured and jailed since 9/11'. I'd really like to know this.
Are you suggesting that people who blow up other people - in their office buildings, in commuter trains, in restaurants, in mosques, hotels, etc - shouldn't be brought to justice? Is that your agenda? Why not?
Now, you say that 'we should not be trying to promote anger against any group'. How noble of you. Does that include the group of extremist Islamicists who are planting bombs? You don't object to this??? You think they shouldn't be stopped?
Oh- and do you think that the imams who are preaching 'death to the infidel west' in their mosques - do you think that they should be 'stopped from promoting anger against any group'??? Or is your rule applicable only to non-visibles.
Are you actually saying that the suicide bombers, and the imams preaching violence, and the ones, who plant time bombs and phone-bombs in restaurants, commuter trains and buses - are you actually saying that they are 'invisible'? Are they magical?
What has to be done - is the moderate Muslims HAVE to stand up, loudly, in public, and refuse to allow their religion to be used by a vicious extremist fundamentalism. They have to 'take back their religion' - and take charge of it, to move it from the medieval sociocultural era, into the modern world.
Do you disagree with this? Do you think that the world should simply sit back and allow people to be blown up? Why? Please explain.
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-22 10:15:08 AM
Colin - I think you should chnage your handle to "Neville" as in Chamberlain.
You may have to look this reference up.
Posted by: Prometheus | 2006-02-22 10:25:01 AM
Prometheus,
You can be Homer or Jethro, whoever you like. But since you've replied to my rant in good faith, let me deal with your substantive questions first.
No, I don't think a hate propaganda charge is justified. Not even close. I do think the provision, which has been given limited use, is a reasonable limit on speech, even though I tend to a more absolutist view on freedom of speech in general. For example, I think that public figures should have to show malice to succeed in defamation actions, as they do in the U.S. as a result of the decision in Sullivan v. NY Times.
I think, given the context of publication and the language of the statute, a human rights complaint might go forward, but I'm not sure it would have a great chance of success. But as I've said, while anyone can file, proving a complaint is another matter. The fact that both parties may get their day in "court" -- in front of a tribunal, really -- is better than letting this fester.
As far as the terrorist motives and goals, I'm reminded of the old saying that "all politics are local." While there may be a few zealots who actually do want to turn the world into a islamic theocracy, in practical terms, the origin of the conflict is that the west has deemed the ME, home to a great many Muslims, to fall within its sphere of influence, giving it the right to intervene militarily, politically and economically. Now there may be many valid reasons for these interventions, but it is naive not to expect some consequences. To attribute those consequences to something inherent in Islam and to conceive of this as a clash of civilizations is, to my mind, a dangerous mistake, especially when it leads us to turn on our fellow citizens.
As to tone, having been the subject of abuse (hey, deepblue, you deep thinker you) as a visitor to this site and having seen the way others are treated when they offer dissenting opinions to the conservative consensus here , I think I'm entitled to have my fun. If I've offended you, I apologize.
Deepblue, on the other hand...well, don't stay up waiting for the cards and flowers to arrive.
ET,
You're repeating yourself here -- another invocation of commuter trains attacks by a handful of nuts as justification for raggging on 1.2 billion people. Isnt' that kind of like holding the Republican party responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing because they occupy the same end of the political spectrum as the bombers?
I'll only observe that,having rejected the idea that offended muslims have any basis for their complaints because we can't rely on their "subjective" interpretation of the cartoons, you proceed to offer your subjective interpretation of the same as a the final word.
Here's a practical suggestion: If you want moderate muslims to do as you ask -- stand up to the extremists and criticize them (all of which is happening as we speak, largely from Muslims on the political left) -- maybe you should try listening to them when they tell you you're poking them in the eye.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-22 11:51:11 AM
ET - Sorry I am not the big English Major, Big Lawyer or big Journalist, I apologize that my inferior program logic is not forward compatible with your superior intellectual computing interface. I will slow down the baud rate so that you can translate.
Canada is at war in Afghanistan
Canada is at war in the waters near Iraq
If we were at war with another country it would be advisable not upset those countries ex-pats on your home turf. It poses a security threat... would you not think so? Perhaps you think we should intern all of them like we did the Japanese during WW2.
Freedom of Speech does not mean you go saying and debating anything you like. There are certain things that if debated or said would take us back to the Dark Ages. Say if say you were a @##$$%%% can we have a debate, remember through this media all Body Language and Tone are lost. So if I said you were a &&&*** is that the same as a #$%%%% lets debate it and lets make the most macho arguments and see who prevails. I think keeping my mouth shut serves a better purpose then this debate would. I have been kind because I have used the ###$^&& characters above. How are the visible minorities being treated since 911 do I have to explain this... No...Have you been living in shoebox deep in a lake somewhere for the last 5 years? I don't promote hatred against any group, I do not approve of any group promoting hatred against another group.
It is very hard to jail someone who has killed them selves in the process; there must be an actual effort to communicate with the leaders of these invisible extremist groups to understand their struggle. Have you seen this effort put forward yet? It worked with IRA. Bombing them into submission will not work.
OK grammarian, the enemy is invisible, I mean Underground, Guerrilla, whatever you want.
All Muslims can sit back and Take it easy, they are not obligated to say anything about what is going on. Did any Christians call for Pat Robertson head when he called for an assassination last summer of Hugo Chavez, No because that would be a good Christian Crusade.
Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-22 12:04:04 PM
Here is what is happening in Denmark.
"Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_2.html
There has been an opening up of the debate in Denmark. I saw one self described muslim on a topic here adding to the debate. We need more discussion here in Canada. Trying to shut down the lines of communications by claiming someone was insulted is not satisfactory. They need to be opened. We need to hear from the moderate muslims. The extremists need to hear from the moderate muslims.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-02-22 12:25:30 PM
truewest - absolute ignorant nonsense - your assertion that the 'origin of the conflict' is due to the west's assumption that the ME falls 'within its sphere of influence'. So, according to you - the entire cause of the crisis within the ME - is due to, and only to, 'the west's interference'. Rubbish.
By the way- as usual, you blame 'the other person' for your 'tone'. You have a tendency to slough off responsibility for your comments, tone, etc, onto others (you are the hapless innocent). Yet, you are constantly pointing out to us your superiority, how we 'make you laugh' because of our ignorance, our naivete, our whatever. So- your tone is your own initiative, and is not a mechanical reaction to others.
Now- your assertion that the cause of the ME crisis is 'the west' - As I said - that's rubbish.
Don't you know anything about social structures - as related to demographics, population growth, economic modes, political modes?
Do you know that the economic mode of the ME has been a sustenance agriculture (horticulture and pastoral) for centuries - and that it hasn't moved into an industrial economy? Yet - when oil was discovered there, the economy switched from rural to urban - but - with those people without any substantive role in the political and economic infrastructure. Right there - that's trouble. How do you sustain this population?
Then, the population growth - of anywhere from 2.4 to 4.4 - which is enormous. And - yet, the political infrastructure remained tribal. Do you know how a tribal political infrastructure operates?? How dysfunctional it is within a large population?? And within one that has to change from agriculture to industrialism? Well?
Education? Non-existent. Do you know the literacy rates? How can you get a population operating in an industrial economy - when they are, for the most part, illiterate? Advanced education? Non-existent.
On and on and on - and not one of these societies made that 'giant leap' into grabbing hold of their ideology, and changing it to an industrial mode..which requires democracy. Absolutely requires democracy. Not one of them would give up tribalism and its family powers - to enable their population to move into a middle class, to take charge of their own economy..and participate in it. Not one.
Now- That is the cause of the crisis. And for you to say that it's the 'west's intereference' - is the absolute height of specious leftist ignorance.
As for your trivial comments about me - it's blather. Meaningless. Your Republican-Oklahoma metaphor is an invalid analogy. The Oklahoma bomber did not blow up that building in the name of the Republicans.
I repeat - moderate Muslims have to stand up and reject this abrogation of their religion by extremists, who are murdering people in the name of their religion. No- it is not happening. They are NOT criticizing those extremists. The few who are saying 'stop the riots'..aren't the majority, aren't the ones in control. The ones in control - are filing the lawsuits.
And - you consider those people murdered irrelevant. To you - it happens 'on the other side of the world'; you are indifferent. In my view, that's an utterly amoral and unethical attitude. It's incredible- how indifferent you are to all those murders. You sneer at them. You don't like to hear about them. I suggest - don't come to this blog. Go drink a latte with your leftist friends...and talk about how superior you are, and how multicultural and accepting you are. Why come to this blog? (No- don't start the superior attitude that you come to 'help us').
How am I 'poking them in the eye' - when I suggest to them that they stand up, and take back their religion from the extremists?? This attitude of 'hiding our heads in the sand' while extremists take over ...is exactly what happened in Germany during the rise of the Third Reich, in Russia during Stalin's rise to power, in China, during Mao Tze Tung's rise....
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-22 12:25:57 PM
Colin- we are not at war with any country. Check out the facts. Ask an official in our defense dept - we are NOT at war!!
Canada is with NATO in Afghanistan. It is not at war with Afghanistan. It is helping the Afghan gov't in ITS fight against insurgents and the Taliban in their country. Canada is not at war!
Canada is not at war in Iraq. It is not fighting the Iraqis. It is helping with the reconstruction of Iraq; it is not at war. Do you get it??
Therefore your 'excuse' for not debating the issue of extremist Islamism is utterly and completely invalid.
I have no idea what you are talking about with your example of free speech. No idea. Remember, free speech is not dogma, is not rants, it is speech whose themes are OPEN to debate. So, if I talk about 'evolution' - then, this topic ought to be open to debate. If I talk about the origin of the universe - this ought to be open to debate. And if I talk about the existence of god (I'm an atheist), and his powers and etc, then, this ought to be open to debate. That's free speech. Dogma and propaganda are not free speech.
You don't promote any group's promoting hatred. How are you dealing with the radical Islamists and their promotion of hatred against the west, their violence and attacks against people?
Please explain why you consider that these extremist groups are 'invisible'. That's wierd. They are, to most people, quite visible. They produce videos of themselves beheading people, they are caught on tape as they blow up commuter trains, they write letters expounding their ideology, they are captured as they attempt to light shoe bombs, they are clearly visible as they exhort their followers to 'kill all infidels' and so on. Please explain why you consider them 'invisible'. Underground? What's your point?
Communicate with them? To discuss what? Don't you understand the nature of fundamentalism? There's nothing to discuss!
You are absolutely wrong. The majority of Muslims should NOT sit back; they are obligated to take their religion back, out of the hands of the violent extremists, out of the hands of fundamentalists - and enable it to evolve towards a modern Islam. Not one frozen in the middle ages and not one abrogated for evil. But a modern and functional religion that enriches people rather than debases and imprisons them.
J. Reynolds from Sudbury - thank you for that information. That is exactly, exactly what should be happening. The Muslims themselves must take charge of their religion and refuse to allow it to be stolen and denigrated by the extremists.
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-22 12:44:40 PM
ET - Canadian soldiers are there to help the Afgan Gov't true. They are in a state of War in Afganistan with a hostile group, is this true? Cut the spin they have guns we guns they have bombs we have bombs and these weapons are being used right now, is this a War Or am I wrong. Go down to your local base and comfort those canadian families with loved ones over there and say "Don't worry we are not there in a war state at all we are just there to help the Afgan Governemnt rebuild".
You condradict yourself you say that "Freedom of speech can only include what you deem as appropriate for debate ..." You Say that Calling you a ^&&**** is not up for debate but making fun of a whole religion is OK. This is very Dangerous, Which do you think is more dangerous right now? Making fun of you or a Religion? They both hurt and no debate is required. Simple.
Invisible I mean there is no visible enemy that we can take our anger out on, or find justice with. Do you see the el qaeda army lately?
I want you to start standing up in public and start defending your religion because I am telling you too, I don't like some of your followers. they have misinterped your faith incorrectly it is your duty to get them back in line. Repent for the Branch Davidians, Jonestown, Pat Robertson and take responsiblity for there actions. Ya Right!
Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-22 1:36:06 PM
Colin- no, you have to be accurate with your words.
Canada is not 'at war'. That's what I was talking about - your continued assertions that 'Canada is at war'. So, your admission now, still doesn't mean that 'Canada is at war'. We have military assignments - and that's not war. It's most certainly not 'peacekeeping'; it's military and dangerous.
No- publishing those cartoons won't make our military assignments more dangerous. They are dangerous 'in themselves', because and only because, the insurgents in Afghanistan are committed to ensuring that the current, elected Afghan government NOT succeed. The cartoons are not relevant to their primary agenda.
That's right - freedom of speech refers to an openness to debating the topic. That can include using humour as a means of debate. After all, humour has been used, for many centuries to show the various 'sides' of an issue. That's called parody, satire (eg. the satires of Juvenal), ..which has the agenda of provoking thought.
Just name-calling - that's hardly intelligent; any 5 year old is already skilled at that. The political cartoons were not making fun of a whole religion, and it is quite wrong of you to say that. As I've said before- they were raising questions about the gap between belief and behaviour (belief in peace, and violent behaviour).
That's an important issue to confront. Do you think it's better to deny this gap and insist that the religion is peaceful, and ignore the extremist take-over of the religion and their use of it to enable violence?
I don't understand why you say there is no 'visible enemy'. The 'shoebomber' is in jail; various leaders of Al Qaeda are known; they aren't imaginary; they are either on the run, or dead, or in prison; various imams who preach violence are known. The Danish imam who added the three fake cartoons and then went to the ME to 'rouse hell' - he's known; he's not invisible. Why do you define these people as 'invisible'?
My religion? I'm an atheist. Sorry. I certainly do defend atheism, i.e., the rejection of a metaphysical causality for physical reality. There's a lot of such analysis (of causality) within my published work.
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-22 1:55:45 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.