The Shotgun Blog
« Drawing conclusions | Main | Plus Ca Change... »
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
MacKay's disappointing start
Peter MacKay hasn't been Foreign Minister for a week, and he's already sounding like Pierre Pettigrew or Kofi Annan. Here's his press release on the Islamofascist riots. My comments are interspersed:
The publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has caused offence to Muslims and non-Muslims around the world and in Canada.
I'm sure it has. So does the fact that Queen Elizabeth doesn't wear a burka, or that women in Canada can drive cars, or that Jews and Christians don't have to pay a special jiziya tax for being infidels. We await MacKay's press release on the offencive daily anti-Semitic cartoons in the Muslims press, or, for that matter, the daily anti-Christian "art" in Hollywood or Broadway. They won't come because the criterion for press releases like this one isn't respect for a religion. It's fear of a religion.
Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly. We commend those Canadians who have acted appropriately.
So now a minister of the crown is telling -- who, exactly? The press gallery? Why won't he say? -- that freedom "must be exercised responsibly". Is he saying that it is irresponsible to publish innocuous cartoons of Mohammed? Is that his legal opinion as a minister? What does "must" mean? Is he going to back that up somehow? Or is he just joining in with his own version of the libel chill that is the true meaning of the riots?
However, we condemn the violent protests that have occurred in some parts of the world, and find the attacks on foreign diplomatic missions particularly deplorable. This sensitive issue highlights the need for a better understanding of Islam and of Muslim communities.
Oh, we do need a better understanding of Islam -- or at least the minister does. And the understanding starts with realizing that there is a choice here, not a compromise: either our centuries-old Western freedoms are supreme, or Islam's centuries-old strictures are supreme. You really can't split the difference.
Respect for cultural diversity and freedom of religion is a fundamental principle in Canada.
If the good minister, also a lawyer, took a moment to read the Charter of Rights, or any other source of Canadian constitutional law, he would find that "respect for cultural diversity" is not a fundamental Canadian principle, but "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" is. You can tell because it's under the heading "Fundamental Freedoms" in our Constitution. I can't find the word "respect for diversity" in the Magna Carta.
In any event, my diversity includes diversity of opinions, and the right to opt out of sharia law. That's my idea of diversity.
The Government of Canada will continue to promote a better understanding of Islam internationally, in partnership with Muslim communities.
So now the Canadian government is in the business of promoting Islam internationally? Absurd; if you need help realizing that's absurd, substitute the word Christianity for Islam. How about promoting classical liberal values, Canadian values?
But with press releases like this one, I rather doubt that clarity is the goal. But I think the riots themselves, and the threats of further and deeper violence (more 9/11's, more Holocausts) that accompanied them, have done more to help our understanding of the clash of cultures than anything since 9/11.
Posted by Ezra Levant on February 8, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834a8145c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MacKay's disappointing start:
Comments
Exactly, Ezra. Who is MacKay actually speaking to? Is it for the benefit of Canada's Islamic community??? It's hogwash - empty, specious nonsense. We had enough of that with Martin and Pettigrew.
It's just out, that C. Rice is condemmning Syria and Iran for 'fueling anti-Western sentiment' in this situation. And that's where the real blame should lie.
This situation has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with 'not understanding the Islamic world'; it has nothing to do with 'cultural diversity'. Hey- it's THEM, the Islamics, who are rejecting cultural diversity; and THEM, who are 'not understanding the nature of political criticism and insist, instead, that people throw their capacity for reason and analysis into the garbage and submit, submit, to faith in...
The cartoons were published in September. There was no reaction amongst the Danish Muslims. But, the political fundamentalists saw a means of using them to promote hatred against the West, in Syria and Iran. Those countries are threatened by democracy; the fundamentalists rule the country and are worried they will lose their power.
The original cartoons weren't inflammatory enough, so the imam who marketed them, added three fake ones (the blogs are now showing the source of one of the fake ones). And, he went to Syria and Iran...whose political forces arranged for the riots. The riots are NOT spontaneous. They are politically arranged; people are bused in. Flags-to-burn are supplied; you don't find the Danish flag in corner stores in Syria, Iran or Afghanistan.
What's the agenda? To mobilize the people there against the West, i.e., against democracy, against using reason, to set them up in a high state of emotive Save My Culture excitement...to prevent democracy.
MacKay's mealy-mouthed platitudes - are a severe disappointment. Who, who, is he talking to?
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-08 11:47:20 AM
One thing Mr. Mackay and the Conservatives better realize quick, is that you can't reason with these Muslims. They are insane. They fly planes into buildings, slaughter innocents in their daily suicide bombings, and they riot at their annual pilgrimage to Mecca (which should really be called the dirka-dirka running of the bulls). Stockwell Day should have been given a chance to be Foreign Affairs minister, at least we'd know he would stick up for Israel and condemn these crazy Muslims without hesitation.
Posted by: Q | 2006-02-08 11:49:19 AM
Odd that the Danish cartoons got almost no attention in the Middle East for over three months. And that it was Muslims from Denmark who finally grabbed attention in the Middle East.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060208.CARTOONCLERIC08/TPStory/Front
If Muslim extremists, by threatening--and using violence, can determine what is printed in Western papers, what else will they be able to control?
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-02-08 11:58:49 AM
From the Daily Telegraph, Feb. 8, "Free speech? Labour cares more about the Muslim vote", by Matthew d'Ancona
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/08/do0802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/02/08/ixop.html
Excerpts:
...
'...Mr Blair's ministers and spokesmen have trimmed and mumbled over the cartoons controversy, passing the buck to the police and prosecuting authorities, shirking the statesmanship that was so desperately required. Listen, and you can still hear the sound of hands being washed: this is a government on auto-Pilate.
The tone was set on Friday by Jack Straw, who condemned the republication of the cartoons of Mohammed, but not the protests that had started the night before, at which outrageously violent slogans were brandished on placards by militant Muslims...
...which is it to be, Home Secretary? Were the police right not to make arrests [at the protests]? Or did they lack the necessary powers? The confusion was compounded yesterday by the conviction of the radical cleric Abu Hamza. That verdict was entirely welcome. But if it was right to convict Hamza for inciting murder, why were those calling for beheadings and terrorist acts not arrested?..
...But it is not political correctness that lies behind the ministerial blether and evasion: it is electoral statistics...
...Now, as flames engulf embassies and British Islamists call for their enemies to be slaughtered, ministers are taking no chances. Nothing must be done to alienate the Muslim vote...
...On Monday's Newsnight, Anjem Choudary of al-Ghuraba - the group that organised Friday's rally - showed in a series of furious outbursts how empowered extremists feel by the impunity they have enjoyed. In response to Jeremy Paxman's point that he might be happier in a country where sharia law was in place, Mr Choudary raged: "Who said to you that you own Britain, anyway? Britain belongs to Allah." And just to make clear what he thinks of the British, he continued: "If I go to the jungle, I am not going to live like the animals. I'm going to propagate what I believe to be a superior way of life."..
...Every politician, as Mr Blair observed a decade ago, resembles Pilate. But not all of them, when the moment of decision arrives, choose to wash their hands...'
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-02-08 12:00:09 PM
Oh why, oh why does every single politician resort to the same old multicultural pieties. I'm really starting to think we can never have a true conservative governmnet in thsi country.
Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-02-08 12:03:50 PM
Bill Graham could have made that statement.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2006-02-08 12:09:01 PM
Hate to interfere when conservatives are bashing conservatives (okay everyone,circle the wagons! Now, fire inwards!) but a minor quibble regarding the role of cultural diversity in the constitution and in the Charter:
Section 27 of the Charter reads: This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
We apologize for the interruption. Please resume your squabbling.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-08 12:12:46 PM
Mr MacKay ... go this url and do a sanity check.
We are at war with the Muslim world. They are fighting and you are bloviating.
Remember this ... a handful of might is worth a bagful of right.
Like any other promise in the world of the free, it's only as good as your willingness to defend it.
http://tinyurl.com/d6efn
Stop looking for a rich bitch to marry for a few minutes and use your big head to figure this out.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-08 12:13:37 PM
I am a Christian and am offended by cartoons that are intended to insult Christians. Obviously Muslims feel even stronger about cartoons that insult them. I think Peter MacKay has a point: freedom of expression can go too far. Even though I realize that we are not dealing with reasonable people, and we should not allow our rights to be abridged by terrorists, I feel that inflaming the situation even further will lead to more harm to innocent people.
Posted by: Herman | 2006-02-08 12:16:15 PM
Some flunkey in MacKay's Ministry wrote that nonsense, which is something Harper was elected
to change. The flunkies in Martin's office,are nicely reviewed in the Hill Times, plus their arrogance and lack of ties with the real Liberal
Party is one of the reasons that Martin is referred to as "the formerly" The Martin government was no friend to the State of Israel
a decision driven by Ottawa based Federal bureaucrats in several international accessed
ministries, who wrote many of the PR's and Ministerial speeches. I think Canadian's expect
change; not available from the NDP or the Liberals that are left, and the Bloc is irrelevant on the international scene. Peter MacKay was a competent junior Crown Prosecutor
basically a jock, not a bright light like his father the Honorable Elmer, and may be out of his depth. We thought here in this little perfact New Brunswick city that he would have been tasked with Defence (not too many bright lights there either).
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-02-08 12:18:04 PM
truewest: It says "multicultural" not "multireligious". Arabs, for example, of the middle east share a common culture but besides being Muslim are also Christian and Druze.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-02-08 12:19:34 PM
Herman,
"I am a Christian and am offended by cartoons that are intended to insult Christians."
The "offence" is in your mind. How do you know that a cartoon is meant to offend you, and not draw attention to Christian "ideas," and not to Christian individuals?
Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-08 12:25:01 PM
This new blue government is no different from the old red one.The same underhand dealings (those who voted for Emerson were conned and betrayed and their democratic rights 'deficited'), Harper with his phoney promises of injecting integrity and honesty,and we have the same flabby-minded pieties,viz. Mackay (a man renowned for honouring his promises) on muslim cartoons.
Under no circumstances would I vote for the Liberals; now the same holds for the Conservatives, that leaves...nobody.
Posted by: MacGill | 2006-02-08 12:30:39 PM
Mark Collins,
I think it's reasonable to assume that th term "multicultural" includes, as a sub-category, a respect for religious diversity.
If you care to argue otherwise, I'm all ears, but this being a constitutional document that recognizes the rights of citizens, it seems to me its provisions demand a broad and generous interpretation.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-08 12:31:22 PM
deeply pleased that this site is attracting more and more of the far left. "freedom of speech" and all that.
Posted by: asdf | 2006-02-08 12:35:37 PM
Herman: I'm offended by comments about commenters who are offended by cartoons. Please remove your offending post immediately and refrain from posting similar offending material in the future.
Or, maybe you can see it another way: free speach should not be limited because sometimes, if not alway, it may cause offence. Free speach is useless *unless* it is available in those cases where people get offended.
Posted by: Steve | 2006-02-08 12:37:17 PM
The freedom to expression is also the freedom to offend. There's no point to the former if the latter can also be used to provoke a reaction. Being offended is not the issue here; inciting riots and violence because of being offended is the problem.
Posted by: Rob Huck | 2006-02-08 12:41:13 PM
What are you really trying to say, truewest? You seem to be tap-dancing right around the edges of saying, "Those cartoons shouldn't be printed," which to me is saying we should just shut up and let the Islamic extremists dictate to us on this issue.
If Islamic society cannot cope with satiric speech attacking its very real, and very dangerous extremist elements, the problem's not with our respect for multiculturism or our freedom of speech, it's with Islamic society.
Posted by: Ian in NS | 2006-02-08 12:44:00 PM
"The 'offence' is in your mind."
This prevalent attitude of arrogance illustrates why calls to "exercise freedom responsibly" will just fall on deaf ears. The media's self-absorbed sycophants simply cannot resist the temptation to mock their adversaries through "artistic self-expression" ... nor to bask in the applause when they do.
And of course, when you have a deadline to meet, you don't really have time to think very deeply about it.
Posted by: Leia | 2006-02-08 12:46:29 PM
truewest,
Whatever you think about multiculturalism, it's irrelevant to this issue. People are burning down embassies because of a cartoon. This is not the time to talk about being sensitive to cultural diversity. It's the time to stand up unequivocally for the right to free speech.
Posted by: Mark Wickens | 2006-02-08 12:48:01 PM
Hundreds of thousands of screaming, rioting extremists are, like the giant invading ants of the science fiction movie, THEM, until they become, what, us?
A billion suspicious THEM in need of change? Of course they are in need of change! They are not us, they are THEM!
Posted by: Gustav | 2006-02-08 12:54:26 PM
Mark Wickens, Ian in NS,
Did I actually say any of that? I was merely correcting a factual error in Ezra's initial post. Geez, tell a bunch of right wingersyou're a liberal and they attribute all manner of things to you.
For the record, I'm with those who say being offended by what others say and do is a) part of living in a free and democratic society b) part of being a grown-up and c)what makes life interesting. I have no more sympathy for the mullahs or the religiously rabid uttering death threats than I do for the folks threatening to shut down museums because they display Andre Serrano's Piss Christ (which, once you get past the title, is quite lovely) or movie theatres because they show Scorscese's The Last Temptation of Christ. Indeed, I believe that anyone making death threats should charged under the Criminal Code, posthaste.
On the other hand, I don't think standing up for freedom of speech requires reproducing all the cartoons on the front page of every newspaper in the country. People who want to do that -- Ezra? -- should be free to do so. On the other hand, people who, for whatever reason, thinks it's a bad idea shouldn't be denounced as quisling. We are not, despite the comments above, at war with Islam. More to the point, we are not (or should not be) at war with our islamic citizens.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-08 1:08:42 PM
Ian Scott: Of course the offense is in my mind. Where else could it be? I can tell whether something is said in humour or with the intent to offend.
Steve & Rob: I agree that freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. I just think that insulting people is not a good idea and may have unpleasant consequences as is now obvious.
Posted by: Herman | 2006-02-08 1:09:32 PM
Right on Ezra!
> “Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly.“
THE INEVITABLE “BUT” INTENDED TO WATER DOWN OR NEGATE THE INITIAL AND MOST IMPORTANT POINT.
> “This sensitive issue highlights the need for a better understanding of Islam and of Muslim communities.”
WRONG! IT HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED FOR MUSLIMS TO CAN THE HYSTERIA AND TO GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTAND OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. OUR FA BUREAUCRATS AND MINISTER MACKAY COULD USE SOME SERIOUS BONING UP AS WELL.
> “Respect for cultural diversity and freedom of religion is a fundamental principle in Canada. PERHAPS BUT IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN’T TRUMP FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
> “The Government of Canada will continue to promote a better understanding of Islam internationally, in partnership with Muslim communities.”
WRONG! THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HAS NO BUSINESS WHATEVER PROMOTING UNDERSTANDING OF ISLAM. IT’S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROMOTE UNDERSTANDING OF FREE EXPRESSION!
I’D BET THE MUSHY LIBS IN THE FA MINISTRY PROPOSED THIS STATEMENT. BUT MACKAY SHOULD GET A GRIP!
Posted by: JR | 2006-02-08 1:10:31 PM
I agree, the cartoons should have been printed and the actions or total reaction with ths setup
by Muslims used to see the reactions of the west needs to be spoken of with some strength and not the usual mealy mouth platitudes used by McKay. The cartoons themselves are not the problem, it is the press who use excuses like
"we want to be fair and not use cartoons which demean any religion" when they are part of a needed item about the cartoons and should be used to show the whole truth.
When did they ever hesitate to show other cartoons with a christian message that have been
far worse than the ones shown? HOw are we to judge if we do not see them? Well, the bloggers
got them out, so thanks to them we can make up
our own minds.
The pigface cartoon is not part of the cartoons,
it is simply a picture of a man at a country fair
or something like that. Totally innocent of any
bias.
Posted by: cjg | 2006-02-08 1:13:44 PM
Oh, really people, Mr. MacKay's job is now head of the department of foreign affairs, foggy bottom, whatever it's called, and it is only to be expected that the department of foreign affairs is always against Canada's interest. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
I'm Vitruvius, and I'm offended by sticks and stones, because they can break my bones, by I'm not ever offended by names, because names can never hurt me. In the latter case, I can just cross you off the nice list and put you on the naughty list.
What is it they say, sometimes the best offended is a good defended?
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-02-08 1:17:14 PM
Herman, Quebeckers suffer from what has been referred to as "indignationalism". Muslims are currently suffering from much the same ailment (Its all about land, see ET's posts). You have the right to be offended, and you and I have the right to offend. "Unpleasant consequences" may well be dealt with unpleasantly. Control yourself, and I'll control myself. What part of "freedom of SPEECH" is hard to understand?
Is the entire left retarded?
Posted by: joe | 2006-02-08 1:18:54 PM
This drivel from Mckay bothers me more than the Emerson fiasco.
Posted by: Stewart | 2006-02-08 1:18:55 PM
At this point it's sad to say that no apologies can be made on either side. As always, it seems, it comes to extremes, almost to the point where the reason behind it all is lost. Now, as we watch people like hyperactive children throw themselves into such a fit that they only hurt themselves, we have have to ask ourselves, "What of it?" Is it truly a game of our Gang against theirs? Nose for a nose, tooth for a tooth. In saying that be prepared for published cartoons of ANTI-everything; race, religion, ideas... to come pouring out of the Muslim countries.... Drawing for a drawing... (It's too bad it wasn't left at that?)
Posted by: Rick O. | 2006-02-08 1:23:37 PM
I think some good will come out of the cartoon fiasco. If there was any doubt about it before, there is little doubt now that, say what you will about the violent tendencies of the Koran, the Mulims harbour within their societies enough anger to explode at any provocation, no matter how minor. We should take this opportunity to express our outrage at the mountain 1/5 of humanity has made of this molehill.
Posted by: st. louis | 2006-02-08 1:32:49 PM
Rick O. - please try to avoid such vacuous lecturing. This is about the defence (or lack thereof) of hard fought and won western freedoms in the face of Islamofascist violence and intimidation. If you have a position on the issue let's hear it. Otherwise....
Posted by: JR | 2006-02-08 1:42:53 PM
It is the Islamists that need to understand Western liberal values.
Perhaps we can send some copies of the Canadian Charter, US Bill of Rights, and UN Declaration of Human Rights etc to Syria, Iran, and Ottawa?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2006-02-08 1:46:40 PM
Start with the Magna Carta. That's where the bifurcation started.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-02-08 1:55:25 PM
JR - THEM! THEM!
"Fascislam." A new one. Just for you. You can even say you made it up. Now go and YELL it at one of THEM.
But seriously...
If you don't believe that the Government of Canada, i.e. us, would not do well to better understand Islam, then it is as if you are naive enough to go up to a hysterically upset person on the verge of running amok in the streets (someone screaming in capital letters, let us say) and saying, Chill the fuck down, that's not how we do things here, and expect that not only is that the best way to deal with the crisis but that it will work.
Islam is in trouble. Open your mind. Be part of the solution.
Posted by: Belinda Agonistes | 2006-02-08 1:57:18 PM
Well JR, I thought I was pretty clear on the fact that a simple drawing should be accepted, rightfully so, in the matters of free speech. I was simply commenting, or better yet, wishing, that the same act of social commentary had been practiced by the offended activists. & I'm not talking about ONE-UP-MAN-SHIP, or trying to be more offensive, or hurtful. The fact that these same people would act out in such a terrorist/violent manner, only qualifies/solidifies the very same cartoon there ojecting too. (Although it is only 11% of the Muslim followers.) Having chosen such a violent protest is NOT by any means a good practice of free speech, or understanding. Free speech should be used to raise issues, & present ideas, not merely a platform for insults, or racisim, or opression. This cartoon has been seen mostly as insulting, & wrong, however there has to be some truth behind the meaning of it, if only for a certain sect, or extreme faiths, otherwise a simple insult would be simply brushed off the shoulder as stupid rhetoric...
Posted by: Rick O. | 2006-02-08 2:01:59 PM
Belinda,
First, can the profanity this is not a left wing blog.
Secondly, Islam is in trouble of their own making.
We do understand them. We don't like them and they really don't like us.
They are the one's tossing the bombs and blowing themselves up. Insanity by anyone's measure.
nez paw?
Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-08 3:11:48 PM
Robert McLelland - what isolate imaginery world do you live in? "Free speech is not at risk in Canada"??? In our Canada of political correctness, there is no free speech.
Are you aware of the professor at St. Mary's University, who posted the cartoons on his office door, and was made by the University Administration - to remove them?
Are you aware of the child who wrote an essay, in which he imagined fighting and even killing someone, who was charged with violence?
Are you aware that Muslims in Canada say they will continue their protests, whether in demonstrations or letters, until the people who wrote and published those cartoons are punished? Is that free speech in Canada?
Are you aware that students in Canada are regularly denigrated by their professors if they present views that are NOT pro SSM, are not pro abortion and so on?
The only thing protected in Canada - is political correctness. And that, Mr. McLelland, is not free speech.
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-08 3:26:32 PM
truewest: An answer to your question, courtesy Colby Cosh:
'This I believe
Is anybody else enjoying the barrage of headlines discussing "cartoon violence" in the Muslim world? Perhaps I'm just insensitive, but I keep imagining Wile E. Coyote in a turban.
On Tuesday the National Post, seeking to make a sharp point about all this "cartoon violence", printed a selection of vicious anti-Semitic cartoons taken from the recent pages of the Muslim press. Today the Post prints a brief, tart letter from one Bonnie Marie Shahin of Calgary, who writes:
There is a huge difference between the distasteful cartoons from Arab newspapers that the National Post reprinted and those published in the Danish media. The cartoons you reprinted are political in nature and do not denigrate the Jewish religion. They are directed at Israel, which is a political entity.
An enlightening summary of the issue, don't you think? If you merely advocate genocide against a "political entity," you are entitled to the protections of free speech, and to full deference to your intellectual dignity. But to criticize a religious creed--well, that's just hateful.
This is, of course, a spectacular subversion of the postliberal ethos of programmed "free expression". Western societies like Canada were encouraged to adopt laws against "hate" in order to protect people from violence and discrimination on the basis of their inalterable, inherent characteristics, most significantly race. But perhaps Bonnie Marie Shahin's view represents our future. "Political entities", including racial groups, will be regarded as fair game--but discussion of the demerits of any belief system, whether Islam, Mormonism, logical positivism, or New Math, will be proscribed. This amounts to a universal ban on reasoned discourse, but then why should mere philosophy be allowed to interfere with the entertaining struggle of rival "cultures" for political power?
My own view is that if we're not free to say fuck Islam, then we're not free, period. My apologies to any Canadian diplomats abroad whose lives and property may be endangered by a simple statement of the essential credo of liberalism.'
http://www.colbycosh.com/#tibw
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-02-08 3:40:54 PM
Mr. McLelland - the Hustler pinups are not presenting an opinion for debate. And frankly, no, I wouldn't be offended. Why should I be?
I'm not a feminist. I see nothing wrong with the fact that the body, male and female, is a thing of physical beauty. So? What's wrong with such images?
Again, the cartoons are a political statement. We've all seen cartoons of various political leaders; aren't the valid expressions of opinions, open for debate? The same with these Muslim cartoons.
And no- don't try to divert the issue by implying I 'hate Muslims'. I don't; but I do hate people who murder in the name of religion - any religion. Or who murder in the name of ideology - any ideology. So, don't get into fallacious argumentation. Stick to the point.
Those cartoons are political statements. Instead of trying to debate and discuss the CONTENT of these statements - ie- the FACT that the Islamic world is filled with fundamentalists who use fear and terrorists actions, to inhibit and control political actions - the Islamic world is rejecting such debate. They refuse to allow questions, to allow themselves or others, to explore the causality of their ideology.
They are using the fallacious argument that 'images of Mohammed are forbidden'. That's false. And, if it were true, it would be true only for followers of the religion. They are then using the equally fallacious argument that 'We are offended; we must not be offended; we require respect". False.
Respect is not innate or inherent in anything. It is a RESULT of activity. And, blowing up civilians in trains and metros, in restaurants and weddings - all in the name of that religion - does not lead to respect. At least - it doesn't for me. Does it for you? You don't seem to object to such actions.
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-08 4:00:43 PM
The temperment in the Muslim world functions at a the pre school emotional level. These are mindless rubes being used by their leaders to bring us down to their level. This cannot persist!
Posted by: Duke | 2006-02-08 4:09:37 PM
Mark Collins,
Funny, I don't remember asking a question. No, just checked. Didn't ask any question that would be answered by Mr. Cosh's musings.
Which I generally agree with, by the way. Personally, I begin every morning by saying "Fuck all major religions - a pox on your all your houses. You make people do and say stupid things. But on the other hand -- I kind of like the art. So does that make me a hypocrite?"
Then I have breakfast and forget all about it.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-08 4:25:22 PM
The moonbats are out in force ready to suck up to the Islamists as if that will ever make any differnce to them!
To the would be appologists I say this:
Get it through you thick jelly filled little heads that the Islamist are not listening to you and do not care what you think or say. They are devoted to only one thing and that is enforcing thei ideology on you and everyone else.
There is not a discussion and is never going to be a discussion.
Posted by: PGP | 2006-02-08 4:42:40 PM
I agree it's not a good thing if any of our Cabinet Ministers launch into the doublespeak of the Liberal era, on any subject. We have fared relatively well in this global culture war, I think in part because we have attracted a more educated group of Muslim immigrants to Canada, but we also have our share of potential trouble-makers, and appeasement is not the best strategy. On the other hand, no point in sticking your hand into a hornet's nest when the hornets are sleeping.
If I were the Minister, I would give some rambling obscure statement pointing to the sheer absurdity of a global crisis that is based on what was printed in a provincial Danish newspaper. At this rate, a typo in the sports section of a Korean newspaper may trigger world war three.
Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2006-02-08 5:09:32 PM
Dear Duke,
"As I walked into the dining room, the premier in a loud voice said, 'I want the fucking Indians out of the park,'" Harnick told the inquiry.
This is not a left wing blog. But it's wingy. Things which define themselves mainly by simplistic sketches of their supposed opposites sketch themselves just as simplistically. Let's just lose these mono-wings shall we? It's better to walk than fly in circles.
It serves no good purpose to repeat we - them - we - them ad infinitum. It is dangerous simplification. There is no "we" there is no "them". Just go out and meet some people. Saying "they blow themselves up" is Bushian reasoning. Tomorrow, if Bush bombed a hospital I would not be surprised in the least to hear him say that he had good intelligence that the mothers there were giving birth to terrorists.
Posted by: Belinda Agonistes | 2006-02-08 5:53:34 PM
Right on Ezra ! So...will the cartoons be re-printed in the Western Standard?
Posted by: Howard Roark | 2006-02-08 6:03:28 PM
We need to stop them immigrating.
They put law abiding citizens at risk.
Posted by: ghollingshead | 2006-02-08 6:27:34 PM
Joe: I am not a liberal. I am a conservative and I am not retarded. Do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal and/or retarded? I simply believe that having the right to insult people does not mean it's a good idea to do it.
Posted by: Herman | 2006-02-08 6:32:40 PM
ET,
Let me see if I understand your position on free speech.
If a university professor posts cartoons mocking the religion of some of his students on his door and is asked -- you say "made" but failed to specify the duress he was acting under -- to take them down, that's a infringment of his freedom of speech. And yet if that same professor mocks his students' opinions on same-sex marriage and abortion, that's an infringement of THEIR freedom of speech. And if Muslims in one country peacefully protest and write letters to call for the punishment of blasphemers in another, that's NOT freedom of speech (I'm not saying its smart speech but..) but its opposite?
Despite your kvetching about political correctness gagging us all, by my experience, freedom of speech is alive and well in Canada. While some might not be satisfied until Jim Keegstra, Malcolm Ross and Chris Kempling can use the public schools to advance their particular agendas, the limits placed on speech in this country -- don't poison your workplace with racism, sexism or religious intolerance, don't provoke hatred of people or incite violence agaisnt them, and that old classic, don't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre -- seem fairly modest. Personally, I think our obscenity jurisprudence is problematic and I prefer the American rule in which a public figure claiming defamation is required to show malice, but to suggest that "there is no free speech" is a gross overstatement.
BTW, as I've said, I have no problem with anyone running these cartoons. On the other hand, running the cartoons shouldn't some of sort of us v. them litmus test, which it seems to have become in these parts.
As for your response to Mr. McLelland's hypothetical question regarding the Hustler pin-up on the professor's door, the question is not whether you or anyone else would be offended (I wouldn't be, although I'd be in no hurry to take the course). The question is whether, by posting the picture on his office door, he effectively makes his office and himself off-limits to his (female) students or indeed to his colleagues. To the extent that there are policies at universities (policies which are, incidentally, far more liberal than policies in place in private workplaces) they are generally fairly pragmatic, designed to make the place reasonably welcoming to all. Do they go beyond that sometimes? Sure, you academics can get carried away. But again, the private sector suppresses far more speech on a daily basis than government does.
Posted by: truewest | 2006-02-08 6:41:39 PM
truewest - your rhetoric is, and I think I've said this before, just that - rhetoric. It's empty, because you, semantically, include contradictory and multiple images and meanings.
1) The cartoons are not mocking a religion. (You have to: Define 'mocking' and explain how the cartoons were doing so).
The cartoons were making a political statement that a particular religion was acting in a violent and terrorist manner. This is a statement showing an intrinsic problem in this religion. This should be discussed.
2)The professor was made to take them down. 'Made' does not include 'duress' or 'force'. Made includes a statement of authority. The administration refused to permit the posters on his door; and he was told that the door is common, i.e., administrative property, and not his own domain. He could post them in his office. It is the administration that is not permitting freedom of speech - and again, free speech is an action-permitting-and-requiring debate.
3)I do not understand your point about a professor mocking a student's views about SSM and abortion. No professor should mock any opinions. The point is - the opinions should be permitted to be discussed. In many leftist professor's classes, these issues are NOT open to discussion. If you go against the professor's leftist views, you are marked DOWN. There is no open discussion; there is only ONE CONCLUSION permitted. That is a denial of free speech. Again, the point of free speech, is that the issues are OPEN to debate and discussion.
3) When I am talking about Muslims, or any group, insisting that their view is the only view, and the only right view, - that is not free speech. The insistence on an apology, is an assertion that their view is not open to debate; that their conclusion is the only right one. A fundamentalist who preaches hate (or love) is not dealing in free speech, for their opinions are not open to debate.
To call someone a 'blasphemer' is a conclusion without validity. First -a religious group has no right to insist that people outside of that religion obey the dicatates of that religion. Therefore, there cannot be any 'blasphemers' or 'heretics' OUTSIDE of the religion.
4) Shouting 'fire' in a building is not 'free speech'. Again - free speech refers to the OPENNESS of the content of the speech to debate. That's what makes it 'free'. Not the fact that I can say whatever I want, but the fact that the CONTENT is 'free', i.e., open to the thoughts of other people.
5) Why would posting the Hustler pictures on his door make him and his courses off limits to female students? What if he teaches a course on popular culture and its imagery?
6) Really? The private sector suppresses more speech than a gov't does? Please provide proof.
In my view, Canada's political correctness is stifling and inhibiting to free speech. And again - free speech doesn't mean just opening your mouth and saying anything. It refers to the CONTENT of what you say - is it open to debate? If it isn't, then, you are a demagogue.
Posted by: ET | 2006-02-08 7:28:25 PM
Barbara Kay writes an excellent column in the National Post today. She states that Western society uses irony in order to correct behaviour. We have become used to this method of expression as a by-product of democracy. Middle Eastern society and dictatorial societies in general don't use irony or understand it in the same way. When cartoons appear in their papers of Jews and Christians it stems from hatred not free speech.
Posted by: Bill in Edmonton | 2006-02-08 7:41:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.