Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Putting our soliders at risk | Main | T-shirt Anyone?
Demonstrating Support for Denmark »

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Cartoons debate

Click here if you want to hear a cartoons debate -- me vs. Scott Anderson and Anna Maria Tremonti. Forgive me for my 4:15 a.m. voice.

Again, feedback welcome.

Posted by Ezra Levant on February 15, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cartoons debate:


Why just 8 of 12 cartoons? What about the missing 4? Too controversial or too boring?

Posted by: Ted | 2006-02-15 12:00:57 PM

I strongly agree with Mr Levant with the fact that alot of newspapers in the big Canadian cities refused to publish the cartoons due to the demographics in their region. In Ottawa there is a movement to build a huge mosque to accomodate the muslim community wich accounts for 10% of the population in that city according to the Ottawa Citizen so to provide news that would contradict their preachings is a constant strugle of words. I am an immigrant myself but not from the middle east but I want to see the cartoons to see what all the noise is about and I haven't been able to find them anywhere, one of my colleagues @ work had printed them but was affraid to bring the to work and show them to those of us that wanted to see them just in case the arabs that work with us would protest. I flew my country to run away from dictatorships, media oppression, death threats, I want to enjoy the Canada that opened its doors and allowed me to keep my culture but I never tried to imposs it to anyone else, and I never try to promote my believes as the only ways the world should be run. I support your freedom of speech and encourage other media to follow your lead, it's only news not a shared opinion or conflict of opinion. Thank you.

Posted by: Kevin I. | 2006-02-15 12:12:11 PM

Gee Ezra,

Whaddaya suppose Dr. Elmasry's stance on gay marriage is?

Posted by: Mr. X. | 2006-02-15 12:13:21 PM

You can find the original 12 here:


I too support free speech and wonder why the "Hate speech" classification was created when we already of defamation and slander.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-02-15 12:22:27 PM

If Ezra Lavant decides to publish a cartoon moking the killing of jews in Poland and Germany, then we would say that Western standard stands for freedom of speech. In his clever crusade for freedom of expression, he should commission Ernast Sundul to craft nice piece of cartoon that tells the whole world that it was the chinook winds and not Hitler Nazi that killed six thousands jews.


Posted by: James | 2006-02-15 12:29:05 PM

Fariin-James. You are not making any sense.

What is the purpose of a cartoon 'mocking' the Nazi killing of Jews? What question are they asking? What contradiction are they pointing out?

The political cartoons, as published in Denmark, were asking questions and pointing out contradictions.

The contradiction is between Belief and Behaviour. That is - IF Islam presents itself as a religion of peace, THEN, why are its adherents bombing trains, buses,restaurants, hotels, mosques, office buildings - in the name of that religion???
The question is - WHY? Explain the contradiction!

A cartoon about the Holocaust - what contradiction is it pointing out, between Belief and Behaviour?

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-15 12:36:16 PM

Ezra is ahead of the curve on this.

This week the UK's House of Commons voted to amend the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in a manner that strengthens rights to free expression ... the mealy mouthed genuflections of Jack Straw on BBC(re the cartoon issue)notwithstanding. The amendments actually removed "crimes" variously typified as insult, recklessness and abuse.

Definitely a step in the right direction.

What concerns me most about Canadian "hate law" provisions, is that their influence transcends mere legal safeguards. It creates a cultural atmosphere of fear and apprehension. Artists, writers and even town square orators become almost neurotically obsessed with 'the need to avoid giving offence'.

Except in the case of the most extreme incitement - I simply do not believe that controlling discourse and artistic expression by artifical means creates any genuine understanding. On a national level such constraints inhibit the emergence of a powerful national identity, a REAL identity, that can only be forged through conflict. Show me any country that has achieved genuine greatness without internal class struggles and other types of energized engagement.

When you slap laws down, you freeze the human spirit, and put people into a cultural deep freeze. Sure it might make for a "nice" sanitized environment - but who the hell wants to live a nice life in cultural morgue? I know I don't.

Growth as a nation is about taking risks, tempting fate and engaging honestly with our differences - even to the point of offending one another.

Anything less smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by: Aidan Maconachy | 2006-02-15 12:45:48 PM

There is a major difference, between freedom of speech (opinon) and deliberate vulgar and provacative attacks on a peoples beliefs, they were offensive, and I am deeply sadened that the Western Standard decided to publish them, in a side note, If I was a Danish exporter I would sue the newspaper that publisher the cartoons as they are directly responisble for my loss of income.

Posted by: arthur | 2006-02-15 12:46:40 PM

One is either for freedom of expression or one is not. One is either for freedom of the press or one is not. The cartoon wars perfectly crystalize the two postions. The Western Standard is 'for', the Ottawa Citizen, CBC and so many others are 'not'. I've bought 2 subscriptions to WS this year; soon I'll buy another. Mr. Levant and the entire staff of the WS, I salute you.
Rodger Beals

Posted by: Rdoger Beals | 2006-02-15 12:51:35 PM

Funny how right after the interview with Ezra, they ran a story about Albertans being in favour of slaughtering and eating horses. What's next for the CBC? Stories about Calgarians kicking puppies and eating kitten kebobs?

Posted by: Crammed | 2006-02-15 12:56:53 PM

I don't know if this has been posted on this board yet, but here it is.

A group calling itself "Students Promoting International Awareness (SPIA)" at the University of Calgary is having a seminar called "When Are Cartoons Not Funny" on Thursday Feb 16. Craigie Hall Center 119 at 4-6pm.

Islamic Scholar Alaa Elsayed will be giving an islamic perspective on this, followed by a Q and A (my guess, more Q than A).

Will anyone from Western Standard be there?

Posted by: Scott | 2006-02-15 12:57:52 PM

Hi. The CBC interview prompted me to write this email to poor Scott who Ezra intellectually pounded.

Check this site for the email

Bravo zulu Ezra.


Posted by: Colin Nelson | 2006-02-15 12:57:59 PM

Hi Fariin,

It's not just six thousand Jews getting massacred by the Nazis, it's nearly a million of them getting exterminated. Please don't twist the facts.

Thank you!

Posted by: speed_demon | 2006-02-15 12:58:23 PM

Arthur - freedom of speech and expression often is provocative. That is the nature of beast.

Are you trying to tell me that an atheist in Denmark who doesn't give a toss about Muhammad as a representitive of anything other than religious fantasies, is NOT ALLOWED to voice his opinions in the form of satire? If this is what you are saying then you are in effect advocating a form of cultural fascism.

Freedom of expression in the past led to riots. Artists such as the Pre-Raphaelites horrified Victorian society with their extremely tame religious symbolism and depictions of lightly draped women.

You simply cannot point to social fall-out as an excuse to muzzle people's rights to free and fair expression - unless you wish to introduce a cultural "order" in which the icons and sacred peronalities of Islam are accorded a special position of sanctity (because as we know Christian symbols are routinely trashed - "Piss Christ" being the most obvious example).

Either you state baldly that you want to introduce such a preferential cultural regimen under law or you stand by our hard won rights and freedoms across the board.

Posted by: Aidan Maconachy | 2006-02-15 1:04:16 PM

You did fairly well, Ezra. Scott proved your point near the end of the interview, by admitting that printing "piss christ" was different because there wasn't as much anger and "vitriol" (i.e., insane violence).

Anna Maria can't seem to understand that the Boys of St. Vincent and the 12 Cartoons are both based on fact and both were taken by some religious people as an offensive slight against all Christians and all Muslims. Both examples referred only to child-abusing and terrorist members of these religions.

btw, called my local Indigo and the "customer experience representative" must not have gotten the memo because she told me your new issue just hasn't been unpacked from the box yet.

Posted by: Angela | 2006-02-15 1:09:50 PM

Freedom speech should take into consideration the personal feelings of people and there should be least some purpose.

Here is some basic Algebra for Mr. Levant

X = 1.5 billion people
Y = number times cartoons published
Z = Level of unhappy people

we know from the past week that
z = X * Y

and that the lower Y is the less Z is but if Y is higher Z is Higher.

this should be the purpose of freedom of speech.

The efforts of promoting free speech would be better served against SLAPP's and perhaps publishing a few of the nasty accidents on our roads every year. Oh... sorry I guess that might offend someone, however it might save a few people those that see the real effects of road kill.

I am a non practicing roman catholic and do not know alot about the islamic faith but I do know enough to keep religion out of any freedom of the press issues. Like lets reverse the scenario Iran and IRAQ have invaded canada to bring about a better good to the people. Although there are certains parts not advisable in trying it still takes place...Now back in IRAQ and IRAN they are publishing cartoons of Jesus. We wouldn't be happy I'm sure.

Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-15 1:10:39 PM

Wow, damn if Ezra doesn't start to take it easy on these idiot lefties like scott anderson they are going to stop even showing up to debate him.

Big surprise to hear him resort to calling western canadians racists. Thats what people on the left always do when there is no substance to their argument.

Posted by: WinnipegLibertarian | 2006-02-15 1:11:30 PM

I think your decision to print the cartoons was absolutely asinine. Printing them YET AGAIN was not demonstrating "freedom of the press" but stupidity.

You KNOW that much of the world is already (literally) in flames about this already. Why pour more gas on the fires? You had nothing to gain but praise from other insensitive idiots and Canada had & has much to lose.

You probably don't give a damn, but I think you're fools.

Posted by: Eric Gable | 2006-02-15 1:14:41 PM

I am not a Western Standard reader, and am unlikely to become one. But I regret that your magazine has been swept off of bookstore shelves by either intimidated or misguided retailers.

The original Danish cartoons were trite and no big deal. Leaving them out of a bookstore would have been no big deal. But the Muslims have MADE these cartoons into a big story. Without a chance to see the basis for this big news item, we must make political decisions on bad information.

Harper regrets the publication of the cartoons. Did he see the cartoons before saying that? Or is he condemning something based on third-hand reports? Or if he DID look at the cartoons, who printed them off for him, and has that aide been fired yet?

Freedom of speech, and the necessity of news sources publishing the information that policy is based upon are foundations of a meaningful democracy. Harper has now failed in his second task as leader of this country. (first failed task was building his cabinet in contempt of the policies he pushed in the campaign.)

Posted by: Greg Goss | 2006-02-15 1:14:55 PM

I think you have it all wrong; Fariin-James was making the argument that if it’s truly an argument of freedom of speech, why don’t you see depictions of the persecution of the Jews by the Nazi regime in some editorialized cartoon. By all means, you have the right to do a pictorial representation of that under the notion of freedom of speech. The answer....out of respect for that culture, we put aside our self righteous need for this "freedom of speech" and, in reverence, do not, in any way, represent something offensive about it. Why is it then that, for this culture, can we cannot respect their beliefs, even if we disagree with them. Why can we not put aside, for one second, the ignorance that cultivates the majority of problems in our world and for once, be the bigger person? You present the IF THEN question, but I think you fail to realize that, only a small fraction of the Muslim world are extremists that “bomb trains, buses, restaurants, hotels, mosques, office buildings - in the name of that religion???”. What about the others who belong to this religion and are peaceful….should they be grouped into this gross stereotype you have presented?

Posted by: Rian | 2006-02-15 1:16:52 PM

"Personal feelings" can't be insured, policed or guaranteed - nor should they be. When they are we enter the realm of emotional blackmail.

Posted by: Aidan Maconachy | 2006-02-15 1:17:10 PM

Sorry Arthur, but I am of the opinion that the deliberate vulgar and provocative suicide bombing attacks, because of peoples' beliefs that it is necessary to suicide bomb non-combatants, is much worse than simply offensive. The original printing of the cartoons did not incite these riots back in October. They are staged and you are being duped by jihadists. Compare that to what the Danish paper did and suddenly the Danes' exercise in free speech seems tame. I hope the Danes cut their aid to Iran, Syria, and other countries that do not fight this jihad. The Danes can then use it to help out their newly troubled exporters by cutting taxes.

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-02-15 1:28:26 PM

I noticed below a posting that showed some of the offensive cartoons against Jews that appear in the Arab press. Much of the blogosphere has printed them, but if in say the next issue the Western Standard decided to print a couple of those cartoons next to the Danish ones for clarity (and perhaps the "pig snout French guy" photocopy that apparently was the real source of the riots) would people still be clamouring to object? If a picture of "Piss Christ" was put up as well to compare how Christians react to negative religious imagery would these Muslims writing to the Edmonton Journal every 36 minutes object to the negative Jewish and Christian imagery? Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-02-15 1:28:48 PM

Reference the Danish 'Kartoons-Kaper'......
I too am [email protected] the memory of the WTC
Twin Towers demolished in all of ten seconds ,having taken ten years to build....with that mindless murder of three thousands 'Souls'....
I am OUTRAGED @ 11th. March '04 Madrid Railway
terminal bombing, by their fellow islamist radicals......
I am OUTRAGED by the 7th. July '05 London
Transport system homicide bombing(s).....& quite close to my Edgeware Road residence, with the slaughter total of
fifty-two innocents ...... via our own home-grown islamist radicals, .......pardon me if I consider those original 'Twelve' cartoons inconsequential...mere commentary...
bernie ......ottawa.

Posted by: bernie phipps | 2006-02-15 1:30:45 PM

Rian- I think that you should allow Fariin-James to be accountable, himself, for his post.

My argument was about the CONTENT of the cartoons. He most certainly didn't say anything about the 'depictions of the persecution of the Jews by the Nazi regime in some editorialized version". No. He didn't say that, and you shouldn't speak for him.

He said 'mocking' of the killing of Jews; and a statement that possibly their death was due to the 'chinook winds' rather than the Nazis. My question to him, was how was this similar to the cartoons of Islam, as used to justify terrorism?
That is - what question would be operating, within his suggested cartoons?

In the Denmark cartoons, the question was: How can you justify the gap between Belief and Behaviour? You state a commitment to Islam as a religion of peace and yet, you murder hundreds and thousands, in the name of that religion. Please explain this gap between Belief and Behaviour.

What were the questions going to be, in Fariin-James cartoons? That's what I asked him, and I await his response.

No, it is not a 'small fraction' of Muslims who are engaged in this terrorism, and your attempt to reduce it to such, i.e., to the criminal actions of a few aberrant rogues, is false.

The GOVERNMENTS of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, are committed to this agenda. This is a political, economic and ideological agenda and is not the activities of a few criminals. It's an agenda of several countries in the ME. The terrorist network is large, is funded, is ideologically supported by the religious and political leaders of these three countries. As I've argued, the reason is, that these countries want to retain their tribal dictatorships, and do not want to allow their populations to move into democracy.

The moderate Muslims are dominated, in the West, by the religious dictums of these extremists - and they have to break free, establish Islam as a moderate religion capable of operating within the global complex world. They aren't doing that, in any strong enough sense; they are afraid of the retaliation of the fundamentalists.

Aidan Maconachy- your posts are simply terrific. Thanks so much.

Posted by: ET | 2006-02-15 1:41:02 PM

Colin suggests:

Like lets reverse the scenario Iran and IRAQ have invaded canada to bring about a better good to the people. Although there are certains parts not advisable in trying it still takes place...Now back in IRAQ and IRAN they are publishing cartoons of Jesus.We wouldn't be happy I'm sure.

i am unclear how Denmark fits into this situation, but lets say canada is under sharia.. ok.

some iranian publishes a cartoon of jesus in a negative light.. well, under sharia the publishers of that cartoon will face rather stiff punishment.

the reaction of 'canadians' is not relevent, as sharia is the only guide to what will happen.

now, i will assume that you want to show the converse, but with something that is not banned under sharia. so lets say something like that is published. say they printed the maple leaf with a fuse coming out of it, or worse, something mocking our fundamental national identity.. something that made fun of our health care system...

do you really think canadians will run around killing people? that is the point, not that 'they are not happy'. it is they are actively oppressing people that hold a different political/religious view.

and the sanction of that oppression by the political correctness crowd.

Posted by: stuckInVancouver | 2006-02-15 1:57:16 PM

> The moderate Muslims are dominated, in the West, by the
> religious dictums of these extremists - and they have to break
> free, establish Islam as a moderate religion capable of operating
> within the global complex world. They aren't doing that, in any
> strong enough sense; they are afraid of the retaliation of the
> fundamentalists.

They are probably just as afraid of the "West" that has declared war on their believes.

Reality is: If this is supposed to be overcome the West AND Islam have to work together to make it happen, neither side alone will manage that.

And until publications like the WS rather pour gas into the fire instead of helping to put it out (by touting "Western Values" for their reasoning) things will get worse, not better.

What people on the right have to understand that reaching a compromise is not a defeat but a victory for both, but with the bone headed "we win or nobody wins" attitude that both sides have on the extreme end of the spectrum a lot more places will burn before it gets better.

My personal hope is that both extreme sides find a nice, open, empty field and go at it until nobody is left standing, then maybe the masses who doesn't want to get dragged into this can live in peace.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2006-02-15 1:58:47 PM

Ezra you did yourself, and those who believe in you, proud. At the end Scott was stumbling over his words and AnnaMaria Tremonti sounded livid. Excellent work at four in the morning.

Posted by: MikeP | 2006-02-15 1:59:54 PM

I have to agree that freedom of the press comes with a responsibility - namely to DEFEND that freedom. This is the responsibiltiy the MSM has abdicated and which Ezra Levant and very few others are doing an admirable job of. This knee-jerk reaction of "sensitivity" to religion is phoney, cowardly, and lame.

Posted by: Javahead | 2006-02-15 2:03:36 PM

Ezra, you are my hero.

Posted by: jeff | 2006-02-15 2:07:12 PM

It's sad how the loudest criticism of the publication of these cartoons in Canada has been from Ontario people. Ontario's racist Apartheid society has done more to oppress and degrade minorities, including Muslims, than any place else in Canada by a wide margin. The white bigots of Tronna are merely protecting their non-white slave labor force. The extent of their racism seems to know no ends.

They are 'multicultural' only because they have to be! It is a tool to keep the races and ethnicities under white corporate control. My solution is this: avoid Ontario like the plague, and let them suffer.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-02-15 2:13:04 PM

I just want to congratulate to Ezra for his clear statements and for having the courage to publish the cartoons so that people know what all the fuss is about. That is, after all, the purpose of "information".
Some people do not seem aware that there were only 8 original cartoons. Four more were added by Iran, including the pig snout one, in order to make things seem worse than they were and to further inflame a number of Muslims. I have the original Danish page at your disposal. Do you also know that an Egyptian paper published the 8 original cartoons shortly after the Danish publication? There was no reaction whatever anywhere. Why was it so upsetting for British, French, German and Canadian publications to do what the Egyptians did? Are some media more equal than others?

Posted by: Bernice Dubois | 2006-02-15 2:14:27 PM

This exchange, around 17:30 into it, says it all. Anderson is left going "uh, um, th-th-that was a different issue all together" when taken to task on the blatant double standard his paper shows towards different religions.

Posted by: Ryan | 2006-02-15 2:15:20 PM


Do I really think canadians will run around killing people if invaded? I cetainly do think Canadians would kill if they we were invaded...certain parts of New Brunswick and Alberta would not be advisable for invasion.
Political Correctness has to start here, Obviously this situation will just fester worse if people keep publishing the cartoons. I hope this is not the case. Your post certainly has humour required to defuse the too damn emotional like myself keep it up.

Posted by: Colin | 2006-02-15 2:16:13 PM

Another thing for Ezra: why are you speaking to the CBC? Those people are the enemies of freedom. They have insulted veterans at every turn (Valor and the Horror), supported 9/11 (the townhall meeting) and have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever. Its Anti-American attitudes are clearly racist.

Harper should be burning the CBC to the ground right now for its total waste of taxpayer's money.

Make it a point of principle in the future to avoid them. Prevent them from attending press conferences, and give them no comment if they do. They must be eliminated if democracy and freedom are to prosper.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-02-15 2:16:30 PM

Colin: Ontarians kill people anyway. It's their contempt for human life that does it.

Posted by: Scott | 2006-02-15 2:17:39 PM


your point makes no sense to me.. i assumed that canada had been invaded and pacified in your example (because (1) hezbollah was not been attacked by denmark, nor has iran, nor syria (2) very little protests have happened in iraq).

if you are talking about an active war, it is not relevent what the enemy runs in its press; there is an active war going on, there is no need for demonstrations, as you can actually go and kill the enemy if you wanted.

if a freedom is dependent on someone not being offended by that freedom, then there will be no freedoms at all (and canada is well down that road)

Posted by: stuckInVancouver | 2006-02-15 2:24:44 PM

You are such a sick puppy you know that! I have some muslims friends and I know what Mohamed means to them,, they love Mohamed more than thier mothers, fathers and sons so that's why they react like that. Hey how about if I published a cartoon about your Mother, father and sister would that be OK for you, hey after all it's all under freedom of speach!

Such a sick puppy you are, the only god you know is cash,, enjoy it man.

Posted by: Mark | 2006-02-15 2:26:03 PM

Cartoons? Freedom of speech?

Mr. levant, you have proved only one thing . . . Hitler and Mengele were right.

Posted by: Paul Aparycki | 2006-02-15 2:28:07 PM

CBC must burn and disappear under the weight of it's own arrogance.

Posted by: jeff | 2006-02-15 2:31:57 PM

Ezra, you turned Scott Anderson into a stuttering fool. Even AMT was at a loss for words. Nice job. It helps being so obviously right!

Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-02-15 2:36:27 PM

Great job, Ezra, keep up the good fight!

Posted by: Joel K. | 2006-02-15 2:36:30 PM

Hey no one be upset from Paul Aparycki post,,, after all it's Freedom of speech! right Ezra!!! I challange you to denay that,,, hey Paul is allowed to say whatever he wants, it's his freedom of speech (I don't agree with you Paul BTW but it's your freedom of speech and I respect that)!!!

Posted by: Nancy | 2006-02-15 2:40:07 PM

Hi Scott

I still you're still frothing at the mouth with hatred. This thread had nothing to do with Ontario but you just can't help yourself. Have other people on this blog noticed your problem? I've suggested this before, but have you considered getting help? Your issues with Ontario go well beyond politics and are would be better addressed by a medical professional. There's really no reason to go through life obsessed and angry because some people made you sad a long time ago. It's not a problem for me, but I think it might improve your life.
I don't have contempt for human life, and I don't know many Ontario residents who do. I do, however, have enormous contempt for anyone stupid enough to make huge generalizations about 10 million people. It's as stupid, and as racist, as making generalizations about Americans.

Posted by: nazz rune | 2006-02-15 2:41:06 PM

I can't tell you how disappointed I am in Harper and his mealy mouthed approach to publishing those cartoons. They were CARTOONS. OK?? The whole point of cartoons is to point out the rediculous, the hypocritical, the madnes, in other words to be provocative. Are we already so Islamified in Canada that the middle-east can now dictate what we publish in our own country? Are we to be blackmailed by screaming terrorist inspired crowds in oh I don't know the SUDAN or SYRIA? Must we be so seeeeensitive to the feeeelings of Muslims who would cut your throat given half a chance. I am presuming here that Muslims who have come to Canada to live would want above all else to have the guarantee of free speech and freedom to publish. They have every right to demonstrate against the substance of the material but we should NEVER give them the power to prevent their publication. What right do the Muslims in the middle-east have to prevent the Danes or anyone else from publishing what they want in their own country. Thank you very much Mr.Prime Minister for demeaning and rendering obsolete our cherished RIGHT of free speech. I thought we had elected a leader with a backbone.

Posted by: Liz Reynolds | 2006-02-15 2:41:20 PM


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: Rép. : The Montreal Police also had there is no reason to believe a recent attack on a Muslim imam was a hate crime


Au nom du ministre de la Sécurité publique, monsieur Jacques P. Dupuis, nous accusons réception de votre courriel du 14 février 2006. Soyez assuré que nous prenons bonne note de votre correspondance.
Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, nos salutations distinguées.

On behalf of the Minister of Public security, Jacques P. Dupuis, we acknowledge receipt of your fax of February 14, 2006. Please be assured that we took good note of your correspondence.

Yours truly

Cabinet du vice-premier ministre
et ministre de la Sécurité publique
2525, boul. Laurier, 5e étage
Sainte-Foy (Québec) G1V 2L2
Téléphone: (418) 643-2112
Télécopieur: (418) 646-6168
[email protected]

>>> 02/14/06 10:49 am >>>
Sadly we also already do know that Muslims like to escalate issues for the sake of the prophet Mohammed too?

The Montreal Police also had there is no reason to believe a recent attack on a Muslim imam was a hate crime. Faycal Zirari who was wearing a traditional Muslim skull cap when a man who spoke in Spanish punched him inside a subway car on Friday night. "The 31-year-old Muslim cleric and two companions followed the suspect as he fled and tried to restrain him outside. The suspect was armed with a knife and Zirari suffered cuts to a leg and an arm. His friend Ressam Chargui, 26, had an eye and an arm injured. Although some members of the Muslim community immediately called it a hate crime, Montreal police say that does not appear to be the case. "We have no information right now telling us this is a hate crime," said police spokesman Stephane Eid. "

Now why is that Muslims and some of the news media do try wrongfully to tell us the Muslims are being abused, the victims when in fact they are at least equally unacceptably guilty in the carton fiasco too now.

The reaction to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad Cartoons from the Islamic community itself , politicians and the news media firstly has been unacceptable and even comical. On the one hand many imams, leaders of the Muslims community have seen the cartoons and yet they next do oppose others to see it and why? it basically shows their prophet in a bad light, so do the acts of the too many bad Muslims now too!!

Stewart named Graham's chief of staff Globe and Mail - 2 hours ago Former federal cabinet minister Jane Stewart has been named chief of staff for interim Liberal leader Bill Graham. Ms. Stewart, who most recently worked as a senior public servant with the International Labour ...

The Liberals do not even learn from their last past mistakes. The Liberals are still even now killing themselves by their own swords for this Jane Stewart, clearly one of the most incompetent, worst Liberal MP in office, to many persons still reminds them, represents all that is bad about Jean Chretien and His immoral Liberal. What a really lousy move now.

(Psa 57:6 KJV) They have prepared a net for my steps; my soul is bowed down: they have digged a pit before me, into the midst whereof they are fallen themselves. Selah.

The Liberals do not even learn from their last past mistakes and Neither do the Muslims.

Posted by: Paul | 2006-02-15 2:44:14 PM

Fariin-James. You are not making any sense.

What is the purpose of a cartoon 'mocking' the Nazi killing of Jews? What question are they asking? What contradiction are they pointing out?

The political cartoons, as published in Denmark, were asking questions and pointing out contradictions.

The contradiction is between Belief and Behaviour. That is - IF Islam presents itself as a religion of peace, THEN, why are its adherents bombing trains, buses,restaurants, hotels, mosques, office buildings - in the name of that religion???
The question is - WHY? Explain the contradiction!

A cartoon about the Holocaust - what contradiction is it pointing out, between Belief and Behaviour?

Posted by: ET | 15-Feb-06 12:36:16 PM

Stop being stereotype, everyone has different ways of expressing there contribution towards god, some in good ways and some in bad... I hope it was answer your so called "contradiction"

Posted by: Icky | 2006-02-15 2:44:38 PM

>Gee Ezra, Whaddaya suppose Dr. Elmasry's stance on gay marriage is? Posted by: Mr. X. | 15-Feb-06 12:13:21 PM

He Likley Practises it or watches porn .. that is what religous hypocrites are like.

Posted by: y | 2006-02-15 2:48:32 PM

Mark @ 2:26, you can't be serious.

You're excusing murder and mayhem because feelings are hurt? Or are you saying Muslims are so feeble-minded and weak-willed that they can not exert some control over their behaviour?

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Go ahead, publish a cartoon of one of my family members. I'll be upset, I might even call you a nasty name, but I guarantee that I will not commit murder or arson, particularly on someone or thing that has nothing to do with this.

Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-02-15 2:48:49 PM

Scott, my first reaction was similar to yours: why was Ezra bothering to talk to CBC. After jumping up and down and gnawing my arm however, I began to agree with Ezra's decision to talk to the evildoers. I know many people who get their news from the CEEB; most are beyond redemption, but not all. My nephew, a young intelligent socialist is a CBC junkie but this issue can get to him. Free speech can cut across many political boundaries. Hearts and minds, one person at a time; this issue is perfect, it makes fools out of fools; just let them talk.
Rodger Beals

Posted by: Rdoger Beals | 2006-02-15 2:49:34 PM

1 2 3 4 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.