The Shotgun Blog
Monday, February 13, 2006
The CBC: "Go read blogs!"
A billion dollars a year, and the best the CBC can do is tell us to go read blogs to get the news.
I wish I got a billion dollars a year to run Angry in the Great White North.
From the interview between the CBC's Harry Forestell and Ezra Levant concerning the decision to publish the Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard (starting at the 0:31 mark of the video interview):
EL: ...I don't mean to be rude Harry, but why hasn't the CBC shown the cartoons?
HF: You could easily cover that news without showing the cartoons.
EL: Well, I'm not sure "easily" because you wouldn't know what the cartoons are like.
HF: They've been published elsewhere and are available on the Internet...
OK, if I was on the board of governors of the CBC, I'd be apoplectic. Did Harry Forestell just tell a national CBC audience to change the channel, or get their news from blogs?!
Heck, I'm paying for the CBC with my taxes. I'm mad too! What the hell...can I get a tax credit for every nugget of news I get from someplace other than the CBC? Maybe the CBC can publish a list of links. Starting with Fox News Channel.
Is this what the CBC is going to be like going forward? Saving a buck by making sure they don't repeat news?
Of course not. What Harry Forestell said is CBC policy in this situation: if the story involves danger, the CBC will simply avoid the scary bits. The CBC audience will have face whatever dangers exist in gathering the news for themselves, while the CBC will provide...what? A safe workplace for its on-air personalities?
Harry Forestell is wrong, which makes it even worse. The cartoons are available on the internet. But so are fakes. When any of us tune in to the news, part of the reason is that we are looking for news from a trusted source. Harry Forestell and his team of crack CBC reporters and researchers will vet the cartoons, confirm the accuracy of the images, filter out the lies and half-truths, and present to us an accurate picture.
But for this story, the CBC has decided to let the audience do that job. For what it's worth, hopefully the shameful exchange will make some people realize that maybe the CBC is not all that relevant as a source of news for Canadians.
Don't take my word on it. Ask Harry Forestell.
Posted by Steve Janke on February 13, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The CBC: "Go read blogs!":
Hey, why did the CBC online video cut off right at the point when Ezra started to insult the CBC? There's probably a good 5-15 seconds missing at the end there.
Posted by: Crammed | 2006-02-13 2:06:13 PM
Point me to a North American TV station that _has_ run the cartoons, and I'll gladly get all worked up over the CBC not running them.
Posted by: john | 2006-02-13 2:06:31 PM
"can I get a tax credit for every nugget of news I get from someplace other than the CBC?"
Good idea. They'd owe me money at tax time, considering I haven't got my news from CBC since the Charlottetown Accord days.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2006-02-13 2:13:22 PM
"if I was on the board of governors of the CBC, I'd be apoplectic. Did Harry Forestell just tell a national CBC audience to change the channel, or get their news from blogs?!"
Don't get too bent about it Steve...most Canadians have changed the channel years ago....only foaming fanatics listen to CBC so they are really catering to their target audience...perhaps to boost ratingd they may broadcast a few beheadings.....we'll leave the maniacal crap to the bomb tossing goat herders and their groveling infidel pals at CBC.
Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2006-02-13 2:16:28 PM
John correctly says the CBC is exactly like every other station.
Which is why we don’t need it and that’s why it doesn’t deserve a billion bucks from taxpayers to keep it going.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-13 2:21:19 PM
I see the original publication of the Muslim Cartoons in Scandinavia as a matter of Sowing and Reaping. Muslim Media have often in the past depicted Jews in a malicious and slanderous fashion showing them in cartoon charactorizartions as drinking the blood of human sacrifice, as well as showing Jews as though they were Nazis. See how they react with such hypocricy when the shoe is finally on the other foot!!! Well what do you expect, false religions are full of hypocricy.
Posted by: Lloyd McDougall | 2006-02-13 2:28:45 PM
john, foxnews has run them (special report, which is abuot the only show i watch on foxnews).
cnn ran some (but pixelated them, which was rather odd to say the least)
i do not watch much else, so i am not sure what others have done.
Posted by: stuckInVancouver | 2006-02-13 2:31:15 PM
Personally, I detest the CBC, got weary of it
some time ago, rarely watch television news but
do listen to Radio II here in this tiny perfect
New Brunswick city - Radio II plays classical music and related great stuff all day. CBC Radio
I, the "opinion radio" introduced a new concept
in radio under Burman; boredom. But in Atlantic
Canada, where private sector radio is the worst in the free world, the options are very limited.
PBS out of Maine, featuring PBS Boston, Detroit
and Chicago is excellent. The CBC has an agenda
which is not in Canada's interests and should be
sold off in my opinion; they cause substantial
harm as evidenced by what they are doing to Wayne
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-02-13 2:31:51 PM
The freedom to print and say what you want is a critical and fundamental right. Free speech (that does not incite violence) is paramount and must be protected.
No one has a "right" to be respected; it's just a decent and civil thing for a person to do. No religion has a "right" to demand from non-adherents adherence to the tenets of its faith; but that does not mean that flouting those tenets in order to prove your freedom to do so is a worthy cause.
So it is hardly surprising that, when it comes to Muslims, so many on a certain side of the fence, think it is now OK to not just defend the cartoonist who drew the cartoons or the publisher who originally published it, but an obligation to go out and re-print and re-print and re-print.
No one should go to jail for publishing those cartoons. But, while there is no "right" to be respected by others, a decent and civil society - and decent and civil people - do not go out of their way to publish content that they know is taken as an insult by others. Nor should anyone BE OBLIGED to publish or read something you deem worthy.
I would defend anyone's right to publish pornography despite the pious objections of some, anti-Christian art despite claims of blashemy (remember Christians burnt down cinemas after The Last Temptation of Christ) and photos of war dead despite claims that this undermines any war effort, but I would not MAKE A CAMPAIGN out of sticking up pornographic photos, mutated images of Christ or photos of blown-up bodies just to make my point, nor would I say that anyone is OBLIGED TO PUBLISH OR PRINT that which challenges a perceived view.
For The Western Standard to publish the cartoons, as it has a right to do so, and to claim it does so out of a need to defend free speech, is patently ridiculous and hypocritical and very revealing, especially for a magazine that laments the publication of "art" that depicts Jesus in a bottle of piss or that depicts Jesus as lustful while dying on the cross.
When no one is going to jail over the cartoons, such a campaign does not defend free speech, it makes a mockery of free speech.
More of my thoughts on the cartoons, the right to publish them, the conservatives' newfound love of free speech, and decent and civil discourse is over at http://canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/2006/02/free-speech-and-civil-discourse.html, for anyone interested.
Posted by: TB | 2006-02-13 2:33:17 PM
I believe Ezra Levant et al has done us a great service exposing the hypocrisy of CBC and other media types.
It okay for Radical Islam to destroy 3000+ lives in NY including Canadians with dozens of other dying daily in suicide booming in the name of Islam with hardly a word of apology from so called mainstream Islam. When the contradictions in Islam are touched on by Danish cartoonist(however irreverent) riots and death and destruction result. When anyone tries to critique what is happening the Islamic community in Canada calls for a law to prevent it if it is not done on terms laid out by them. CBC's seems to be OK by this as their HF gave a much rougher go to EL in his interview than CBC ever gave the Sucide Bombers in Israel and then berate EL re regard for religion. One would find it a joke if what is taking place was not so serious.
Posted by: Bill White | 2006-02-13 2:38:34 PM
I had already transcripted some of Ezra's anti-CBC remarks, from the end of the interview, before they chopped them.
Have a look at "CBC Decapitates Levant Interview" and "Ezra Levant Tars and Feathers CBC Hypocrisy," at StandSure.ca
Posted by: Chad Anderson | 2006-02-13 2:51:58 PM
From today’s Wall St Journal’s Best of the Web comments about The New York Times’s double standard.
“The Times has published at least one artwork that many Christians found offensive: Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary," a collage of Jesus' mother "with cutouts from pornographic magazines and shellacked clumps of elephant dung." The Ofili work sparked a controversy in 1999, when New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani sought (ultimately without success) to withhold city funding for the Brooklyn Museum, where it was on display.
Captions in the Factiva database suggest that photos of "Holy Virgin Mary" appeared at the time of the controversy, but one also appeared as recently as last Wednesday in an article about the Danish cartoon fracas--which did not include images of those cartoons. So it seems clear that the Times Co. does not have an across-the-board policy against publishing images offensive to believers.
There are some reasonable distinctions to be made between the newspaper's behavior vis-à-vis the Danish cartoons and the Christian-offending artworks. For one thing, the act of provocation in the former case consisted of publishing the cartoons in a newspaper. That means that an editor, in deciding whether to reprint them, is part of the story in a way that an editor dealing with a story about government subsidies for art is not. Indeed, we don't remember ever hearing anyone object to newspapers publishing images of "Piss Christ" or "Holy Virgin Mary" except in the context of objecting to the purported double standard.
And of course the nature of the response to the provocation is different. Christians never expressed their objections to these artworks by rioting, burning flags or threatening terrorism. Call it cowardice or prudence, but as a practical matter many editors are reluctant to pour fuel on the fire. Such combustion as there was over "Piss Christ" or "Holy Virgin Mary" never threatened to get out of control, so that editors felt no compulsion to be responsible.
In other words, American Christians object peacefully when the government subsidizes work they consider blasphemous, but they recognize that private individuals and institutions have a right to produce and display such work. By contrast, some Muslims in Europe and the Middle East respond violently to private expression that they regard as sacrilegious.”
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-13 3:10:00 PM
A week ago I had complained to the News media [email protected] itself that the News media in Canada simply bashes, victimizes Christians, Catholics and Evangelicals and they know that if they do that to the Jews, Muslims instead they would oppose them strongly for it.
Next I agree the Muslims are reaping what they have sowed.. worldwide too.. they are being kicked out in Eurpoe, Russia too, and they really got kicked out of Russia so they came to Canada in masse..
The news media also wrongfully kisses ass to those who they think will support them. I noticed CTV cowardly showed the cartoon for a few seconds, so fast you could not see them at all.. bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by: His | 2006-02-13 3:35:43 PM
Like I have written I support your free speech attempts.. I do not believe that everyone has the same right of free speech in Canada, not even equally heard by the news media too from my own personal last 25 years of experiences in Canada's West and in the east.. I support free speech.. it is a clear measure of how perverse the society is, and in the Islamic countries freedom of speech and freedom of religion is denied cause they are clearly perverse.
I have said it before in Canada too when you use your free speech to speak against any of the wicked they likely will also set the law against you to try to obstruct justice.
You have to be a non Christian, a Jew, Gay or even Muslim to get Canada's supreme court's attention still? "Supreme Court refuses to hear Kempling appeal "The enemies of free speech have gained a victory," said Chris Kempling, a Quesnel secondary school counsellor and evangelical Christian, after learning two weeks ago that the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear his freedom-of-speech case stemming from disputes with the British Columbia College of Teachers. The Teacher Chris Kempling was suspended because he wrote published letters critical of homosexual behavior was properly punished with a one-month suspension, the British Columbia Supreme Court firstly had ruled. Calling it “a sad day for all Canadians who value the free exchange of ideas in the public square,” he vowed to continue the fight to be free to express his point of view on homosexual behaviour which has led to repeated suspensions from his job and successive court battles with the college.
and what about the Canadian TV Station Attacking Church Yet Again " Toronto-based Vision television aired the first of its big-budget miniseries The Secret Files of the Inquisition. Alberta Nokes, While responsible historians have debunked the so-called “black legends” of the Inquisition, Vision’s website promotion paints a black portrait of the Inquisition’s “reign of terror that would endure for more than 600 years. Vision’s online promotional material for Secret Files of the Inquisition includes some of the classic anti-Catholic slurs including the set-piece of a lurid tale of a beautiful young woman and her priest-lover. The synopsis for last night’s first episode reads: “Among those caught in the terrifying grip of the Inquisition are Beatrice de Planisoles, a beautiful noblewoman, and village priest Pierre Clergue, her secret lover – and betrayer.” Secret Files of the Inquisition is only the latest of Vision’s shots at Catholicism. In October 2005, Vision gave Fr. Karl Clemens, a self-proclaimed “gay” priest, a platform to attack the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Fr. Clemens was followed by editorial commentary from Vision’s regular program host Marianne Meed Ward in which she gave a vitriolic attack on the Catholic Church saying the Vatican is "hunting people who have publicly admitted being gay." She added, "This would be comical if it weren't so diabolical. TORONTO, January 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Vision TV, the Toronto-based broadcaster that bills itself as “Canada's multi-faith and multicultural broadcaster,” is positioning itself as a leader in anti-Catholic media punditry. The broadcaster’s most recent round comes in the form of a programme on NDP MP Charlie Angus’ very public conflict with Catholic teaching on same sex “marriage.” British Evangelicals celebrated the defeat of segments of the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill that they say could have criminalized Christians for preaching Biblical values. In a budget bill approved by the US Congress funds were given to grassroots groups who provide marriage education and relationship skills for low-income couples in order to avert divorce (unlike as in Canada where divorce is encouraged) .. and what about in Canada? Canadian Legal aid even does not provide money generally to contest a divorce.. and the "Supreme Court out of line with swingers decision too... It does not take any wise person to know that sex swapping, adultery is still immoral.
The Canadian Foreign minister means he is going to expound when calls for better understanding of Islam.. we all put our heads in the sand and deny their unacceptable, negative terrorists emotional violent outbursts and now lie and say Islam is a peaceful religion, killing only a few people so far promoting their own false agendas, unacceptable dictatorial state and values now? Muslims even still do the same thing they do protest against.. kill and make bad cartoons.. and now how really hypocritical it is of them and us all now too? What you cannot remember when the last time any one, especially a federal cabinet minister had said officially, specifically in Canada, Peter Mckay said they were sorry the Christians had been abused? neither can I.. cause he still really does not care about any offending the others or of the Christian votes? he only cares about the people who hate the Jews and the Christians...Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay issued a statement Wednesday noting that the drawings, which appeared in some European publications, have caused offence in Canada and abroad... but not the Islamic poor reactions? Clearly wrongfully Pandering to fear, Pampering to the Mulsims is still wrong too.
But Truly anyone demanding or threatening Death, for any cartoons is now really an unacceptable approach, agenda! One that is a criminal offense in Canada still too. And all of the Muslims now demanding this is both indicative of the huge vast moral gap between the too often hypocritical religious Islam and the rest of the world, and their Religious extremism, false domination which instead brings us in direct contrast death, violence, and slavery to the false demands of a minority group who often themselves do not practice what they preach to others. Their false threatening of any others, their attempts to also strip them of their human rights in the name of Islamic law that only a small segment of society believes in, is really now also quite unacceptable and very intolerable. The Muslims are advancing now an really totally unacceptable agenda : they want to us all to sacrifice our rights and freedom for their oppressive society, one that lets the Imams, mullahs dictate to us all what is said and when. A perverted agenda that Jesus himself had abandoned us from and had set us free now from even centuries ago. ..
(Rom 8:2 KJV) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (Psa 121:7 KJV) The LORD shall preserve thee from all evil: he shall preserve thy soul. (1 Timothy 4:1)"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons." (Acts 5:29 KJV) Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (1 Corinthians 7:23) "You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. ." (Psa 23:6 KJV) Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
The personal Religious Submission to any others is also now always voluntarily and unenforceable. These bad People who are wrongfully trying to enslave us, to have control over us, even with their false religious, Islamic demands they will rather if we let them cause us to go crazy, mental, even cause they now are also in reality themselves demonically led too. And these bad people they will always be around and try to do so but we should not heed to their false demands now not even for one moment too.
Everyone's Freedom of speech or freedom of religion is righfuly not a right to slander, abuse, insult any others who do not think like us.. the Jews, Christians, Muslims too, and all persons now have the same human rights too but not in practise starting in canada. all of their protests should be conducted peacefully... reject violence as a way to express discontent... governments around the world should protect the lives, human rights and property of all citizens, even the diplomats against any violence.. be respectful, protect property, protect the lives of all of the innocent citizens, diplomats who are serving their countries overseas too. “Huge chasm” between Muslims and the West". Politically correct. Freedom of Religion or freedom of speech is acceptable only if it is an Islamic one... ". Face it the West's fascination with the Islamic Cartoon's as well is they are rightfully really tired of Islam continually shoved down their throats, they do not want anything to do with that oppressive religion. Australian prime minister John Howard also has said he considered the violent reactions to the cartoons “are completely disproportionate to the offence that could possibly have been given”. Rightfully also do tell all of the Muslims Imams in Canada to pray for and to practice now real peace in Canada and rather not be a part of the too many religious hypocrites. Montreal Muslim leaders said today they respect free speech and freedom of the press, but don't want those values to be used to promote Islamophobia. It is not the free speech of the others that causes today's rightfully vast Islamophobia but rather the undeniable, unacceptable violent, murderous negative acts of the Muslims themselves still. What about Muslims demonstrating for freedom of speech, freedom of religion of all faiths in the Muslim world firstly too.. what it would be not allowed? they would likely be killed for it.. how hypocritically of them to demonstrate in Canada against the other's freedom of speech worldwide.
Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten editor who made the original decision to publish the cartoons, spoke about his actions, the reaction and the bigger issues at stake—freedom of speech and false religious sensitivity. " if any religion—it doesn't matter if it's Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, any religion—tries to impose its own taboos on the public domain. When I go to a mosque, I behave by the rules that exist in that holy house. I will not stand up and make a cartoon of the holy prophet in a mosque. But I think if any religion insists that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, then I don't think they're showing me respect. I think they're asking for my submission. This is a key issue in this debate." Others have said that The “caricature war” between the Moslem world and the West in all likelihood has an artificial cause and is likely to develop into a “war of civilisations” Some belive that “the fuss around the caricatures was made artificially” and the caricature uproar provides a “pretext for showing how coherent Moslems are”. The Protest over caricatures of the Prophet has become just another excuse to promote Islam world wide The controversy over Danish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad has mushroomed and it has predictably escalated rapidly with imams around the world fanning the fire their Friday's mosque sermons.European nations also have a long time ago decided not to give any more grounds to the rapid rise of Islam.. Local politics, too, are a complicating factor. Militant Danish and European Muslims helped push Arabs to join the fray and more confrontation are expected still to come.
I have never seen the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad and i likely would not have published any them, or any cartoons for that matter, but if the Muslims are going to protest they should rather really rightfully protest about all of the pornography, explicit sex, as well so readily available even on the net to the adults and children now too, Long-standing concerns over pornography's corrupting influence are being confirmed by recent studies. and protest about the too many drunk drivers, drug abusers. And they should also even protest at all those people who mock the Christians and Jesus Christ now as well. and the people who steal, abuse the tax payers money, commit tax evasions.. and I know many Muslims who admitted to me doing that too now.. they should complain about the too many bad clergy in Canada I have also encountered.. Really! Why begin and stop at only the cartoons? It is also always inappropriate to gossp, even for pastors, to discuss behind their back as well publicly the shortcomings of a spouse.. doing so reveals that the tale bearer themselves is in the wrong, guilty of slander and of rebellion now as well.. rebellion even to God, There is still no room in the church or in society for the liars, abusers, thieves or the alcoholics still as well or the World wide sacred act of the ostriches too often is still to overlook, cover-up the wrong doings of politicians, and even clerics.. and their taboo in not breaking a supposed sacred trust, to hear and to speak no evil of others, but now we do know the price for having turned a blind eye to the politicians abuse and to the clerical abuse, even the paedophile priests. (1 Tim 5:20 KJV) Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. 21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. I would be more impressed with the imans, the Muslim's protests if for a start they had themselves practiced the peace, rights they themselves preach to others.. Islam, Muslim are not at all a peaceful, peace loving religion by their own follower's acts as we still can see world wide.. and too many Muslims do not protest when any of the others are abused or when they abuse them themselves still too? in reality now we all can too readily know that too many Muslims themslves now do not respect the other person's freedom of religion for a start.. or their freedom of life.. and they Muslims they now do even use their freedom of speech to bash either both Jews and Christians unacceptably. I too would be more impressed with their Muslims protests if for a start they had themselves practiced themselves what they preach to others.. as I rightfully do not accept any others too dictating to me what I can and cannot do.. the fanatical Muslims included now too. A former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, a radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza was convicted of inciting his followers to murder non-Muslims and Jews. and what good is really being done about all of this too now. The Muslims even do the same thing they protest against.. and now how hypocritical it is too. and in Canada we wrongfully do still let them preach hate???
It also never ceases to amaze me when the self appointed clearly slave drivers, many do say", you should love everyone and not condemn, Judge anyone" yet, at the very same time, these persons are not practicing what they preach, not even their own professing values, they themslves firstly still are judging the others, slandering them too, and are calling the others personally every name in the book because they don't agree with what they have to say.
My own father is another one of those immoral religious fanatics, terrorists too, and has that way all of his life, he believed in freedom of speech as defined as his only, and no one else had a right to challenge what he had said. He also believed in wife beating, and cutting off any of people's head who did not go his way. He did not believe in women as equals, having rights too. He even believed in children as slaves of the father, who have to obey him and do whatever he says even if it is immoral. My greatest peace was not to be near him. The last time I personally had saw him we had another one of those unacceptable conflicts with him, and I especially said to him that "Canada has freedom of religion, and I live under the Canadian laws in Canada and what laws in Canada does he live under? foreign laws".. his own mainly!!!
But the " government will be vigilant to ensure that freedom of religion is protected in Canada." also still needs to deal with the negative reality of religious intolerance that significantly exist in Canada and even that there are still too many fundamental, evangelicals who practice name calling, and they still do say that anyone who is a Pentecostal or a Charismatic Christian are lunatics, mystics, too emotional, dumb, baby Christians and naive shut-ins. or mentally deficient, or deceived or are demon possessed.. etc., as I have too often heard evangelical pastors in Canada, in the US too, even a Calgary evangelical Christian Missionary Alliance Pastor saying this too.. and one cannot overlook Canada wide the Jews, Muslims, others too also who still wrongfully do promote hatred of the Christians in Canada, and who so readily expose their supposed wrong doings too, the bad Jews like the Alberta Senator R Ghitter for a start.. Also seen any of those too many movies produced by Jewish movie directors all about the bad Christians? Try to show a movie about any of the bad Jews or bad Muslims and you will see loudly what will happen likely next.. "Canadian Evangelical Leaders Concerned About "Extreme" Portrayal During the fderal Election too" CLEARLY IN CANADA AS I HAVE SAID TOO MANY people wrongfully, unacceptably even in the news media do not hesitate to bash the evangelicals, the other Christians, but they certainly would not dare to do that with the Jews and Muslims..
Canada does now also needs to be one fair, honest, uniform Canada wide Canadian code of Justice Standard for not only the sentencing of persons who have done the wrong doings in Canada but also now real accountability for every and all of the Canadian police forces, Justice Ministers now too, who really also should be also personally held accountable for all of their management, charging policy implementation on behalf of not only all Canadian victims, but their actual response to any other police- social issues e.g., shootings, drinking and driving, violence against men and women, children too, the usage of drugs, the distribution of drugs, car thefts, break ins etc... and that includes the honest, fair, just, uniform citizen based Police Complaints review boards Canada wide. In Ontario "The police do not recognize that women are also perpetrators of domestic violence. There is apparently no such thing as "husband assault." Now when men and women are equal sinners, liars, now in the eyes of God too now.. all of the police arrests thus should now even reflect a similar statistics now too in each province even across Canada.. even for the too often mostly revenue generating speeding tickets as well... and we need the " Bill to jail lawyers who lie to the courts. Senator Cools' bill still too.and what about spouses who too often lie to the courts now too in separation, divorce applications and do not get prosecuted by the too often bad court judges too? Yes clearly there always is still still is a need for all, even more adequate, and more honest, competent too, RCMP reviews of the past, present bad acts of civil and public servants, as well as the bad politicians in Ottawa, elsewhere. Very few Terrorists for that matter are successfully caught and prosecuted in Canada still for In spite of it's history, it's public relationship image, in reality the Mickey Mouse RCMP, the too often incompetent, pretentious RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is still self serving mostly and it really does not serve the good interest of the citizens of Canada, it mostly still serves it's own interest . It really should be totally disbanded and replaced by a police force made up of decent persons to start up with. Not one bad Liberal that abused the taxpayers money in the federal sponsorship scandal now still has spent one day in Jail and all really unacceptable..Now please do use the most effective solution still just simply, economically do fire also all the bad cops, bad civil and public servants, their managers too, all of them and even do put them into jail like the rest of us do in the real world too.. so now do put them all into jail.. all of the abusers, wrong doers. Public exposure and prosecution of all of the guilty always also serves as the best deterrent to all next too.
Do see also http://groups.msn.com/CanadaToday2/bullying.msnw http://groups.msn.com/CanadaToday3/abusers.msnw
Posted by: His | 2006-02-13 3:39:26 PM
I wouldn't compare the reaction of radical fundamentalist Muslims - which is entirely indefensible - to anything Christians have done. So far off the scale as to not be comparable.
But please don't revise recent history and tell me that fundamentalist Christians have always protested peacefully. At least three cinemas were burnt down after they showed The Last Temptation of Christ. Doctors performing legal abortions have been murdered, and their murderers cheered by others.
The reactions - calling for the death or dismemberment of the cartoonists and their publishers - are dispicable. Period. They are not dispicable because fundamentalist Christians react differently.
Posted by: Ted | 2006-02-13 3:51:06 PM
A class act in LA, Michelle Malkin, has published the cartoons on her website AND has acknowledged others who are stepping forward to defend our civil liberties. She mentions the Western Standard and the Jewish Free Press of Canada among a scattering of others. People should also be aware of the courage of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose interview with the staff at Der Spiegel is posted on their website (February 6). Ms. Ali was a friend of Theo Van Gogh, the fillmmaker who was brutally murdered by a Muslim fundamentalist for the film Submission, an expose on the treatment of Muslim women by Muslim men. Ms. Ali bluntly states that Europe (and now North America too as we have seen) is afraid to criticize Islam, period. But insists Islam must be critiqued just like any other group. In fact, she is certainly afraid of what may come in Europe if radical Islam is not scrutinized and challenged. She is a Dutch MP and has 24/7 police protection.
I wanted to put in a good word for Ezra Levant and his decision to publish the infamous cartoons - finally - in Canada. Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, claims this is a hate crime and that he is going to file charges against Levant. All I can say is, the only hate crimes I've seen lately are those perpetrated by tens of thousands of Islamic fundamentalists in cities around the globe. If Elmasry does go ahead and file the charges I can only hope this winds up in the lap of the Supreme Court. Since when is any religion or organization above critique? And since when does Islamic law or sensitivities define our country's constitutional rights to freedom of the press and freedom of speech?
The media in Canada say they have not republished the cartoons out of respect. Isn't it interesting that they have never extended this sort of respect to any other religious group or organization? The truth is Canadian media are intimidated and are trying to put a politically correct face on it. As for Islam, this whole reaction is one of sheer hypocrisy. They regularly publish cartoons in their overseas periodicals caricaturing Jews and Christians and Israelis. The Taliban blew up the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan. And Islamists go beyond anything those Danish cartoons did by frequently calling for the death of Jews and Christians and Israelis. So are their cartoons supposed to go under the category of freedom of speech or hate crimes?
No one in this country or in Denmark or in any democracy should ever feel pressured into not exercising their right to freedom of thought and expression. Such a right has been too hard won to be dismissed and discarded at the first difficult test of this principle since the end of the Cold War. Sure, it sounds nice to say that all the newspapers should apologize and kiss and make up with the Islamic cartoon protesters and make it a better world. But I'm not interested in living in a world where any group of any kind is above criticism. Those who think freedom of speech and expression ought to be tossed aside in favour of a few hours of peace should talk to Salman Rushdie or perhaps, if it were possible, the late Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. They should consider that the next time something comes up - women's rights, gay rights, film rights - some group will take offense at it and decide they can make mileage with it and manipulate it to their own advantage by taking to the streets with murderous threats. If anyone should apologize let those who organized the violent marches apologize. Let those who would seek to manipulate our societies by force and fear apologize. Let them learn to protest in dignity without such disgraceful and extended eruptions of hatred. Why should Islam or any religion or any organization whatsoever be above scrutiny because of the spectre of murderous and anarchical repercussions from that group? Is this the world we want? It is never politically correct to apologize for a human right. No one, no newspaper, no TV station, no person, should ever feel they have to apologize for using the precious liberty of freedom of expression. I am quite free to say I disagree most strongly with those who believe we should submit to the protesters' demands. There will be other times in the future when things need to be said on any number of issues about any number of groups and the media needs to feel free to say them without being threatened with bodily harm or being compromised by their government leaders or their citizens. But the media must begin by standing up for their own rights and the rights of those they speak for and speak to. For them to surrender their freedom and dignity and sacred trust in the face of the mob is one of the great wrongs and great scandals of our fledgling 21st century. And it will not end here if the media continues to cave.
So I say to the Western Standard, well done. You are a periodical that is serving its nation and its citizens well by refusing to be intimidated and silenced. And perhaps one day moderate Islamists themselves will feel free to admit that Mr. Levant has done them a courtesy too, not a wrong, for upholding the principle of liberty of expression which benefits the followers of Muhammed as well as everyone else.
Posted by: Murray Pura | 2006-02-13 4:39:34 PM
To Compare the massive world wide demonstrations calling for the beheading of Danish cartoonists to the tiny (Well publicised) group that supported killing abortionists is a real stretch. Even you Ted must adm,it you are grasping at straws. Anyone who killed an abortionist has been either executed or is serving appropriately long jail sentences and you don't have mobs in the streets demanding their release. very unfair comparison. When we are talking apples to apples we need to focus on the cartoons or at least art work.
As far as movie theaters being torched, I have no knowledge or memory of that but I did read that last week alone 10 Baptist churches in Arkansas have been leveled by an arsonist. This could have a conection to these cartoons.
Posted by: Servant | 2006-02-13 4:41:51 PM
Ezra encouraged us Canadians to write letters instead breaking windows so here I am; although it seems that Western Standard blogs stand in as slag-the-CBC sites. He called Harry's bosses (Tony Burman) chicken-shits and says that showing the pictures is germane to telling the story. He also says that he isn' going to let some Muslim extremists tell him how to do his job.
In point of fact, they did. The story is how the media's reprinting of inflamatory material is causing widespread murder and mayhem. Instead of reporting the story the Western Standard became the story; they became part of the incitement of hatred (or least-wise the appearance of it).
While everyone I've talked to has little idea how the cartoons can be the cause for such outrage we are equally bewildered as to how the Western Standard considers this to be responsible journalism.
Posted by: Richard MacKinnon | 2006-02-13 4:50:56 PM
HF: You could easily cover that news without showing the cartoons.
EL: Well, I'm not sure "easily" because you wouldn't know what the cartoons are like.
Of course, Ezra is wrong. I have read many times that some of the cartoons are simple protraits and one shows Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. Those descriptions are more than enough for me to know what the cartoons are all about. In fact, when I went to look at them for the first time my reaction was, "Yup, just as they were described." Ezra's on a self-promotion tour and it's working. That's all.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-02-13 4:57:28 PM
So you're publishing those Danish cartoons because they're news, and not because they're anti-Islamic? Well, there's a newspaper in Iran that has made some decidedly anti-Semitic cartoons into news, will you be publishing those as well? Do you support any paper that publishes anti-Semitic cartoons, or only those, like the Danish one, that runs anti-Islamic ones? Is one freedom of the press, and the other hate? How do you tell the difference? And what about that Danish paper, didn't they reject some anti-Christian cartoons last year, saying it would offend their Christian readers? Gee, double standards abound.
There's no denying the hateful practices of some in the Muslim world, does that justify equally hateful practices in Europe, or Canada?
This isn't about "freedom of the press", it's about fostering hate.
Posted by: Patrick | 2006-02-13 4:58:36 PM
Ted the point of the article I quoted above gets to the issue of the double standard.
We can’t have censorship because: who decides? So it comes down to civility, tolerance and sensitivity toward ALL religious beliefs, even Christianity.
The other parallel issue is taxpayer funded insults versus the right of private citizens to make uncensored statements, they can even call it art if they want, but the taxpayer shouldn’t have to fund it. Specifically Rudy Giuliani, the New York Mayor, was unsuccessfully at blocking taxpayer money for the “Piss Christ”. My guess is that he’d be more successful at getting the public funding blocked today.
As you say, to compare the reaction of offended Christians “is so far off the scale as to be incomparable”. But maybe we can learn from the moderate Muslims that we also need to have the courage of our convictions. These useful examples would not have been discovered if we had censorship and not endured the insults. In other words, turn the other cheek until we come up with an effective plan within the law of the land.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-02-13 5:13:33 PM
I support Ezra 100%. He knows he may lose as many sales as he gains, so I honestly don't think it's about boosting circulation. And on the other side, he will have to live in fear for his life for awhile, until some other Canadian publications wake up and smell their journalistic ethics.
There is no free speech where it is limited by that which is offensive, or politically incorrect, or religiously insensitive, or even "hateful". Speech should only be curtailed in the most limited and extraordinary circumstances, and breaking Islamic Law does not even come close.
My grandfathers didn't put their lives on the line so that we could bow down in fear to radical Muslims.
Posted by: Joel K. | 2006-02-13 5:37:30 PM
Why are cartoons that question the link between Islam and terrorism fostering hatred? Isn't that a legitimate link to explore? Or is Islam above criticism? No one in the cartoons is telling anyone to go out and kill Muslims. As cartoons do, they are offering a critique in the form of satire. I haven't seen any religion or nation (including Israel) exempted from such scrutiny yet.
There is no way those cartoons constitute hate crime. What will foster a backlash is the riots. Is it too much to ask the clerics to tell their people to demonstrate with dignity and resolve? Or do we have a co-dependency here? Radical Muslims are helpless to control themselves so we can't talk about their issues like we do with everyone else. I don't believe that and yes, I do have enough respect for the Islamic faith to believe they can protest more responsibly than that.
Sorry, Mark. Someone telling me what the images are like is not enough. I have the right to see for myself. And when I see for myself it is very clear there is no hatemongering going on. Critique, yes, fomenting hatred, no. Otherwise you might as well say that any criticism of any group or any individual, any dissent, is an act of hatred, and that is simply not true. I repeat, the primary acts of hatred I have seen in the past two weeks regarding this issue have come from radical Islam itself with their murderous placards and stinging oaths. If those were neo-Nazis marching and carrying those signs there would have been mass arrests in our late great Western democracies. How hypocritical is it for the UK police to let all that hatred spew over London's streets and take no one into custody - except two counter-demonstrators that showed up on the scene during one of last week's street rallies? How hypocritical is it for Islam to arrest its own people who criticize the violent demonstrations and the over-the-top reaction to the cartoons but do nothing to temper the vicious demonstrations that truly do bring dishonour to Islam?
If some of you on this thread are concerned about the Western Standard stirring up hate by publishing a few lame cartoons, maybe you can explain to me why the outrageous hatred stirred up by radical clerics and Islamic fundamentalists doesn't receive any censure from you? Maybe you can explain to me why Salman Rushdie is still in hiding or why Theo Van Gogh was murdered for making a film about domestic abuse in Islamic families or why a Dutch MP has to have 24/7 police protection for doing no more than challenging the precepts of Islam? Is that hatred, just to have an opinion that flies in the face of others' opinions?
You bet this is about freedom of speech. And to prove my point, watch and see how difficult it is going to be in the future for anyone anywhere to dare voice any valid criticism of Islam, even if it is done in the most unobnoxious way. The mob has intimidated. The mob has killed. And now the West is afraid of the mob. And we have citizens of democracies trying to tell us that airing a criticism is a hate crime. The hate crime I see that no one will call a hate crime lies with the violent protesters who say they are acting in the name of Allah and that it's everybody else's fault they must protest in such a vicious manner.
Posted by: Murray Pura | 2006-02-13 5:46:50 PM
Speaking of most feared terrorist groups. I suspect most of you would be surprised to realise the United States Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. since 1993 have identified the Jewish Defense League as America's second most active and feared domestic terrorist group. Put that one in your pipe Azra and smoke it.
Posted by: Ben Mohatt | 2006-02-13 6:46:09 PM
"And we have citizens of democracies trying to tell us that airing a criticism is a hate crime."
No. I suggest knowlingly fueling religious extremism by repeating sacrilege over and over under the guise of freedom of the press is stupid and vicious.
Posted by: Richard MacKinnon | 2006-02-13 6:51:09 PM
The fact that many Muslims have over-reacted to the cartoons does not take away from the original offense of the images. I'm not a Muslim, so I can't say exactly why these images are so offensive, but quite obviously they are. There is more going on here than the Mullahs in Iran stoking the anti-Israel fires. And I defy anyone to show me a mainstream Western media source that has run, in the past 50 years, an anti-Semitic cartoon. Why is it that anti-Islamic cartoons are not only printed, but then defended? Where are the defenders of such freedoms when the KKK spews it's hate? As someone here pointed out, if neo-Nazi (de facto anti-Semitic) groups took to the streets, there would be mass arrests. Why are newspapers allowed to foster hate against Muslims, but the KKK gets to spend the night in cells? And if I made a public speech calling all Jews murderers or all Blacks lazy, I would almost certainly be arrested for inciting hate. Why is it different when all Muslims are so labelled?
There is a line of civility that cannot be crossed, and inciting hatred is a pretty basic one. Labelling Jews, Muslims, Blacks or any other identifiable group en masse is simply wrong, and anyone with two brain cells should be able to see that. Quite obviously, the editor of this paper has an axe to grind.
Oh, and the JDL deserves the terrorist label. As example, they recently tried to murder a US Congressman (though they deny it, of course).
Posted by: Patrick | 2006-02-13 7:04:31 PM
To the "freedom of speech" and "right to print" advocates, kindly tell your children I said "f-you you little brats" and your grandmothers they are "terrible societal burdens"....or I guess I'll tell them myself next time I see them. You probably won't like it, but hey, freedom of speech!
Funny how tolerance, respect and understanding are trumped by inflammation and the need to get publicity, which at this point in the debate are the only reasons to re-print the cartoons in question.
I guess this is in line with Mr. Harper picking Clement and Flaherty for the Cabinet....another Common Sense Revolution with zero common sense.
Posted by: Lawrence | 2006-02-13 9:16:00 PM
The CBC is shameful in their denial of facts.
The violence, murder, and destruction by those who pretend to act in defence of Islam is not acceptable. They murder for a joke.
If we can run a cartoon and have them kill more people then we have overwhelming proof that they are a dangerous cult from which governments and society will have to develop adequate protection. We should not give in to their constant menace. Are we to be led to the slaughter like sheep.
In the simplest of terms, those that wish to persecute us for our beliefs should never be rewarded when their behaviour is violent, murderous, and hateful.
Thank you Ezra for pointing a finger at the truth.
Posted by: Morley | 2006-02-13 9:55:29 PM
I agree with Richard that there is no point in printing and reprinting the cartoons ad nauseam. On the other hand, that has hardly happened in North America, in fact, quite the opposite. Until a week ago I was hard pressed to find the cartoons and make up my own mind about them. And when I meet people who have hard and fast opinions about this issue many of them have not seen the cartoons either. Yet they have made up their minds! No, there is certainly a place for a few more printings of these cartoons and, as far as Canada goes, the Western Standard and the Canadian Jewish Free Press seem to have supplied the lack.
As for why Ezra decided to publish, knowing there would be a minor firestorm over it, well, only he knows his soul, but I am inclined to believe it had very little to do with anti-Islamic sentiment and more with a defiance in the face of a "You'd better not publish" threat and a sense of chagrin at the many so-called bastions of the free press in Canada and the US who would not exercise one of the most fundamental rights of a free society and print information so citizens could make an informed decision. Opinion based on hearsay, which is what many people I've met have formed, is not the kind of intelligent thinking most of us want in our democracies.
I believe many of us are well aware that we are talking about militant fundamentalist Islam when we are critiquing the Islamic movement. Those who are so upset at the cartoons, or upset at those of us who are not upset at them, might reflect upon the fact that a number of very, very brave Islamic moderates have been arrested and jailed for taking precisely the stance many of us on this thread have taken - the cartoons are not that big a deal and in no way justify the kind of violence we have seen from the Islamic community in response to them. I am well aware of the difference between a moderate Islam and a radical one and it is the latter that I confront in my posts.
The cartoons simply do not justify the vicious response that has, we are given to understand, spontaneously erupted in the Islamic world (I suppose all those flags of Denmark just happened to be in everyone's pocket or available for purchase at the local store). We have several cartoons that are wonderful drawings of Muhammed. Offensive for no other reason than that Muhammed must not be depicted. All right. But other than that there is absolutely nothing terrible about them. Muhammed is not doing anything cruel or degrading. There are a couple that critique fundamentalist Islam's attitude towards women, and a couple more - including the infamous bomb in a turban drawing - that satirize the connection between Islam, Muhammed and suicide bombers. But these are not viciously done even if they may well sting followers of Islam who don't like to think about their faith being connected with mass murder.
Now I place these alongside cartoons rendered by militant Muslims about Jews, for instance. These cartoons are easily found on the internet and were drawn well before the present crisis. What do I see? Well, here is one with gleeful, sadistic Israeli soldiers feeding Palestinian children into a hand-turned press that squeezes the life blood out of the children, blood that is being scooped up in goblets by laughing, big-nosed Jews with yarmulkes who are hugely enjoying the drinking of it. Hmm. I wonder if that cartoon might not be several notches above anything published by the Danish papers? Then I see another cartoon. It is the Israeli flag. But no. The star of David has turned into a swastika. Hmm. So the Israelis, descendants of those who were put in the gas chambers and ovens by the Nazis, are Nazis themselves! I wonder if we might classify that cartoon as offensive and degrading? Wait, there's more. No anti-Semtic cartoons published by any mainstream media in the West in the past 50 years, you say? How about Britain's Independent? It's a fairly important paper and what do we find? A cartoon of a grotesque Ariel Sharon eating Palestinian children, a take out of Dante's Inferno, and Sharon is saying, "What's wrong? You never seen a politician kissing babies before?" This cartoon, penned by one Dave Brown, was awarded first prize in 2003 by UK's Political Cartoon Society and championed as Political Cartoon of the Year over 34 other entries. And people are going to tell me there hasn't been a double standard applied in the cartoon and satire arena and that double standard hasn't favoured Islam and whatever it holds sacred - like Palestine?
Miltant Islam, which has desecrated Buddhist monuments, destroyed churches and Christians, killed Jewish women and children, murdered those of the Bahai faith, is not going to be the group to lecture me - or the West - about respect for religion. They have none. The only reason they are upset is because criticism has touched those Muslims who consider themselves above criticism. No, I side with the courageous Islamic moderates who have said, "Look, ignore these cartoons, our faith is bigger than this pettiness, don't resort to violence and death threats and hatred, these cartoons are nothing." And that is why I hope some who have never seen the cartoons before may look at them and make up their own minds about the drawings, one way or the other, based on the hard evidence itself, not on what other people tell them to think, sight unseen.
Let people see for themselves. Let people think for themselves. Let people choose for themselves. Without fear or intimidation. I'm grateful for the freedom of the press. And I'm grateful the Western Standard has exercised it.
Posted by: Murray Pura | 2006-02-13 10:19:06 PM
To Lawrence, you just had your freedom of speech, calling innocent people names. Mr. Clement and Mr.Flaherty were picked to clean up the mess and corruption in Ottawa, just as they had to do in Ontario when Bob Rae left his ten billion dollar deficit for Ontario.
Posted by: Keith | 2006-02-14 10:16:08 AM
MSM, Liberals/NDP are left right out in the cold...brrrr. Mr. Blue Eyes croons not to MSM's tune >>>
Harper talks to world leaders [but, but,... not to MSM]
OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to be busy on the telephone today, fielding calls from world leaders, including the head of Hamas.
But there was no word from the prime minister's office by mid-afternoon about what was said - or even if the calls went ahead.
Harper was to talk with the presidents of Columbia and Ukraine, along with the head of the Palestinian Authority.
He is scheduled to meet tomorrow with Quebec Premier Jean Charest.
However, an e-mail from the PMO said it is to be a private meeting, with no photo-op and no availability with the media. >>>> via cnews
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-02-14 2:42:56 PM
I'd like to thank Ezra Levant for making the world safer for me to draw cartoons. What a public service he's done, and for free too. Not a lick of personal interest involved.
Posted by: M. d'Entremont | 2006-02-14 6:56:15 PM
You're an idiot for calling Harry Forestell out on this. He is an amazing reporter and I have never had an issue with his broadcasts. If you're looking to call anyone out on poor broadcasting...why aren't you talking about Colleen Jones?
Posted by: Pfo | 2009-03-19 1:25:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.