NationStates Jolt Archive

The Jewish publisher of Western Standard, Ezra Levant, has decided to reprint the infamous Muslim cartoons in his magazine, despite the urging of caution by the Canadian Prime Minister to be respectful of others beliefs.

After the release of the cartoons, Harper had this to say (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060214/cartoons_060214):

"Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others," Stephen Harper said in a written statement, his first comments on the incendiary cartoons since the furor first erupted.

"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others.

"I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."

I believe that Levant is desirous of fueling the fire and that his publication of the cartoons has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with his disrespect of Islam.

I found the following cartoon??? on the Western Standard web site and fail to find any humour in it at all:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/02/more_cartoons.html

Canada is generally a peaceful and respecting country. Perhaps Levant, while persuing his own agenda, would like to change that?

Thoughts or comments. Please leave your hate or anger at the door, Thanks.

Why is it relevant that he is a Jew?

I roll my eyes at you.

I believe that Levant is desirous of fueling the fire and that his publication of the cartoons has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with his disrespect of Islam.
That's what it was about from Day One.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399840,00.html

That is nothing compared to this.

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/arab_media_portrayal_jews.htm

I do sympathize with the guy printing this. For decades, the Muslims have printed far worse about the Jews.

Although I don't see the need to add 'fuel to the fire', this particular cartoon isn't necessarily the 'image of Muhammed'. It's condemnation of the 'over-reaction' some in the Islamic community have had regarding the cartoons. Fair game, if a little unnecessary, in my opinion.

Why is it relevant that he is a Jew?

I roll my eyes at you.
I think I explained that in my OP.

That's what it was about from Day One.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,399840,00.html

Are we reading the same article? Is there a debate about self-censorship for jesus cartoons in denmark? Is that why JP, fell down on the job here? What?

People have the right to say, write and draw whatever they want and they have the right to publish it. If I don’t like it, I don’t look. People satirize Texas as a bunch of gun crazy racists all the time, but you don’t see me getting pissed off about it. I have far more important things to get pissed off about, like restrictions on free speech.

It is hypocritical to promote removing censorship in anything, without calling for a removal of censorship in everything. Otherwise, you aren’t arguing against censorship, you are arguing that that particular thing need not be censured. Now, if you are in favor of censorship, you are a sad case of intellectual sloth.

Oh yeah, and who cares if the guy is Jewish? Is it really worth mentioning? Whatever.

That is nothing compared to this.

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/arab_media_portrayal_jews.htm

I do sympathize with the guy printing this. For decades, the Muslims have printed far worse about the Jews.
OMFG!eleven!! u is the racistststss!11!1@!!!

That is nothing compared to this.

http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/arab_media_portrayal_jews.htm

I do sympathize with the guy printing this. For decades, the Muslims have printed far worse about the Jews.
I think both sides are wrong for printing them in the name of *****cough***** humour.

I think I explained that in my OP.

No, you didn't. Explain to me why it is important that he is jewish.

It's not only jewish publishers and editors that have 'added fuel to the fire'. I want to know why his religion is so important you had to point it out twice, without saying why it was relevant.

Is there a debate about self-censorship for jesus cartoons in denmark?
The Muhammed cartoons were a deliberate attempt to test how far they could go. Because some Christian fundie nutcases are developing a persecution complex, and JP caters to those types, they started a competition for cartoons deliberately meant to piss Muslims off.

Afterwards, they came up with the whole "Oooh, it's Freedom of Speech...but can you see how we were right and the Muslims really are savages?"

The article I posted merely contributes to that picture.

Oh yeah, and who cares if the guy is Jewish? Is it really worth mentioning? Whatever.

My point exactly. I agree with the rest of your post also.

The Muhammed cartoons were a deliberate attempt to test how far they could go. Because some Christian fundie nutcases are developing a persecution complex, and JP caters to those types, they started a competition for cartoons deliberately meant to piss Muslims off.

Afterwards, they came up with the whole "Oooh, it's Freedom of Speech...but can you see how we were right and the Muslims really are savages?"

The article I posted merely contributes to that picture.
I agree. I believe that the cartoons??? are certainly not meant to be humorous or an expression of "freedom of speech". They represent hate literature to me and have no real place in a world of increasing tensions.

The Muhammed cartoons were a deliberate attempt to test how far they could go. Because some Christian fundie nutcases are developing a persecution complex, and JP caters to those types, they started a competition for cartoons deliberately meant to piss Muslims off.

Afterwards, they came up with the whole "Oooh, it's Freedom of Speech...but can you see how we were right and the Muslims really are savages?"

The article I posted merely contributes to that picture.

I don't see how your first two sentences logically connect with my question.

Was there, or was there not, a debate about self-censorship in Denmark?

Was there, or was there not, a debate about self-censorship in Denmark?
Yes. That was the reason they started the competition.

So what is your point?

I think both sides are wrong for printing them in the name of *****cough***** humour.
The animals in the middle east print tens of thousands and the world is silent. Twelve are printed here and dozens of people die. And the 12 in question are hardly as offensive as the shit the Muslims put out.

I think this person is doing it not in the name of humor, but to prove a point that there is a double standard.

I agree. I believe that the cartoons??? are certainly not meant to be humorous or an expression of "freedom of speech". They represent hate literature to me and have no real place in a world of increasing tensions.
Then where does the whole Arab media belong?

People have the right to say, write and draw whatever they want and they have the right to publish it. If I don’t like it, I don’t look. People satirize Texas as a bunch of gun crazy racists all the time, but you don’t see me getting pissed off about it. I have far more important things to get pissed off about, like restrictions on free speech.

It is hypocritical to promote removing censorship in anything, without calling for a removal of censorship in everything. Otherwise, you aren’t arguing against censorship, you are arguing that that particular thing need not be censured. Now, if you are in favor of censorship, you are a sad case of intellectual sloth.

Oh yeah, and who cares if the guy is Jewish? Is it really worth mentioning? Whatever.
I truly believe that there is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and what could be classed as hate literature. I believe that these so called cartoons are just that.....hate literature.

I think this person is doing it not in the name of humor, but to prove a point that there is a double standard.
The problem is that the only people who could stop these cartoons being printed in Muslim nations are their governments - and those need the Jews and the West as scapegoats for their own failures.

We however here, and the Jews in Israel, we can decide at least what gets into our papers. And we don't have to go down to the same level as they do.

Unless of course we need scapegoats for our own failures.

Yes. That was the reason they started the competition.

So what is your point?

So regardless of your theory about just doing it to piss muslims off, they at least had a pretextual reason to publish which was not related to just pissing muslims off.

In fact, this is part of a wider ongoing debate, which extends beyond just JP and their cartoons.

And you are just trying to trivialize it.

I truly believe that there is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and what could be classed as hate literature. I believe that these so called cartoons are just that.....hate literature.

What, like backhanded implications that all jews are muslim haters? Or implying that there is some 'jewish' conspiracy?

And you are just trying to trivialize it.
No, the problem is that JP thought self-censorship was a good thing when they didn't publish Jesus cartoons, but they thought it was a bad thing when they published Muhammed cartoons.

I don't really see where the debate is anyway. You don't walk down the street and tell every fat person how fat they are, do you? That's self-censorship, and it's part of living together with other people. It's not a bad thing.

Afterwards, they came up with the whole "Oooh, it's Freedom of Speech...but can you see how we were right and the Muslims really are savages?"

So they should have exercised caution...a caution that the western media and society normally does not exercise when it comes to portraying other religions negatively (intentionally or humourously)....because the muslims might respond violently and prove the cartoonists right?

So, it is the fault of the cartoonists for provoking the muslims and no fault on muslim mobs for reacting violently and rioting and setting ablaze buildings and causing deaths in the process?

IOW, muslim mobs have a right to be violent and we better be careful in what we do lest we offend them and cause them to become violent.

Sounds like dhimmitude to me.

The animals in the middle east print tens of thousands and the world is silent. Twelve are printed here and dozens of people die. And the 12 in question are hardly as offensive as the shit the Muslims put out.

I think this person is doing it not in the name of humor, but to prove a point that there is a double standard.
Just the very fact that you call them "animals" suggests you support the publishing of these cartoons??? not for their comedic properties but more so for their disrespectful nature?

I don't condone the publishing of these viscious by nature cartoons??? by either side of this issue.

The animals in the middle east -snip-

Thanks for rendering your opinion void.

So they should have exercised caution...a caution that the western media and society normally does not exercise when it comes to portraying other religions negatively (intentionally or humourously)....because the muslims might respond violently and prove the cartoonists right?
No, it does exercise it. That's where my link about the Jesus cartoons comes in again.
I don't go around and call Hindus, or Buddhists or even Pagan Witches things, just because I don't believe in what they believe in. Generally, the same is true for the media - and when it isn't, there usually is someone who gets offended and an apology is issued.

The thing about all this is that now it's about Islam, and all of a sudden all the old prejudices and all the persecution complexes (on all sides) come out again needlessly.

So, it is the fault of the cartoonists for provoking the muslims and no fault on muslim mobs for reacting violently and rioting and setting ablaze buildings and causing deaths in the process?
I would really appreciate it if you could point out to me where I might have said that.

Because I'm honestly getting sick of these allegations, when all I ever say is that you shouldn't insult people just to prove that you can.

You don't walk down the street and tell every fat person how fat they are, do you? That's self-censorship, and it's part of living together with other people. It's not a bad thing.

Everytime a muslim call for prayer is given from the mosque, they proclaim loudly "la illah il allah mohammed ur rasool ullah" (There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger).

It is very offensive to me. Why can't they exercise self-censorship and not shout that my God is false from the roof tops?

But I don't go rioting, do I? Or should I go burn the mosque and then claim that I was offended and the mosque people should not have provoked me?

So they should have exercised caution...a caution that the western media and society normally does not exercise when it comes to portraying other religions negatively (intentionally or humourously)....because the muslims might respond violently and prove the cartoonists right?

So, it is the fault of the cartoonists for provoking the muslims and no fault on muslim mobs for reacting violently and rioting and setting ablaze buildings and causing deaths in the process?

IOW, muslim mobs have a right to be violent and we better be careful in what we do lest we offend them and cause them to become violent.

Sounds like dhimmitude to me.

This wasn't an issue of failing to excercise caution, this was an issue of deliberate provocation. In short, JP wanted the response it got. This is obvious from the cartoons: they are not funny (which would make them justified as humour) and they're not actively offensive (and thus promotions of a given political idea). Their only purpose is to be offensive, but they aren't actually, so they serve only as a declaration of already unspoken intent. They're a formalized, rather stupid insult intended to start conflict, much like "Yo momma" jokes, as I pointed out on an earlier thread. No one's actually fighting over the cartoons.

Everytime a muslim call for prayer is given from the mosque, they proclaim loudly "la illah il allah mohammed ur rasool ullah" (There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His messenger).

It is very offensive to me.
And you still refuse to understand what I'm saying.

They don't shout this purposely to insult other people. They shout it because it is part of their religion, of their belief, and if there were no other religions on this planet, they would still be shouting it.

The cartoons on the other hand were purposely meant to insult people. They were meant to test the limits - in other words, to insult people and see if you can get away with it.

There is no right not to be offended, and I have never and will never advocate the government to stop any of this, but I still believe that a good human being, and especially a good media organisation, should be able to see when too far is taking it too far, and not proceed if it isn't really necessary.

No, the problem is that JP thought self-censorship was a good thing when they didn't publish Jesus cartoons, but they thought it was a bad thing when they published Muhammed cartoons.

There's no on-going debate about self-censorship of jesus images. And like I said, this is part - albeit not very tactfully - of a wider debate. The 'did it just to piss muslims off' is far too simplistic. This didn't happen in a vacuum.

I notice you don't comment on their rival rags self censorship either.

I don't really see where the debate is anyway. You don't walk down the street and tell every fat person how fat they are, do you? That's self-censorship, and it's part of living together with other people. It's not a bad thing.

I realize its a complicated distinction for some, but censorship is not the same as time, manner and place restrictions. So your two cases aren't comparable.

What's more I bet you have at some point insulted someone's nationality etc. So this sensitivity is all a little disingenous.

A bit like the OP.

No, it does exercise it. That's where my link about the Jesus cartoons comes in again. I don't go around and call Hindus, or Buddhists or even Pagan Witches things, just because I don't believe in what they believe in. Generally, the same is true for the media - and when it isn't, there usually is someone who gets offended and an apology is issued.

I mentioned western media and western society in general.

I can give you plenty of examples of denigration of hindu icons by putting them on tissue paper, beer, lingerie and footwear etc.


I would really appreciate it if you could point out to me where I might have said that.

Because I'm honestly getting sick of these allegations, when all I ever say is that you shouldn't insult people just to prove that you can.

Well, you said this

"Afterwards, they came up with the whole "Oooh, it's Freedom of Speech...but can you see how we were right and the Muslims really are savages?""

which could mean that

"The cartoonists are wrong for provoking muslims". I agree that the paper JP(?) is hypocritical for not publishing cartoons that could offend christian sensibilities.

But you are missing the forest for the trees.

The issue is the tendency of violence..the ease at which the mobs could be worked up into a frenzy of violence...

I mentioned western media and western society in general.

I can give you plenty of examples of denigration of hindu icons by putting them on tissue paper, beer, lingerie and footwear etc.


That's true, the zoo has a statue of ganesh outside wild asia, and there are always little kids climbing all over it and droping ice-cream and ketchup on it.

I've seen it with my own eyes. No one complains though. (That I know of).

What, like backhanded implications that all jews are muslim haters? Or implying that there is some 'jewish' conspiracy?
I am not implying that all Jews are Muslim haters and I realize that all Muslims are not Jew haters. I found it ironic that the only publisher in Canada that was going to go main stream with these cartoons??? was in fact Jewish.

And like I said, this is part - albeit not very tactfully - of a wider debate. The 'did it just to piss muslims off' is far too simplistic. This didn't happen in a vacuum.
The debate (and I'm starting to think that you know all this perfectly well) was about Islam becoming a force in the country. The self-censorship/showing respect to Islam was just one aspect of this.

JP as a right-wing paper has an audience of people who believe that Denmark is under attack from immigrants destroying the country. They see Jesus as something that is normal, and Muhammed as something that is foreign and suspicious at least.

As you said, it didn't happen in a vaccuum.

I notice you don't comment on their rival rags self censorship either.
And you would mean that they went out there and published information? This is actually true, this actually happened. These are facts.

Cartoons, editorials and the like aren't.

I realize its a complicated distinction for some, but censorship is not the same as time, manner and place restrictions. So your two cases aren't comparable.
Censorship is when other people make you not say certain things. Simple as that.
Self-Censorship is when you yourself make you not say certain things. You can do that for various reasons, some are more valid than others.

No journalist though (or at least I think so) actually would hold anything back because of protests threatening violence. The only reason they would hold something back is the perfectly valid one of not insulting people purposely.

What's more I bet you have at some point insulted someone's nationality etc. So this sensitivity is all a little disingenous.
I wasn't aware that I was a paper with a million or more readers. And, yes, I generally try not to offend others on purpose.

That's true, the zoo has a statue of ganesh outside wild asia, and there are always little kids climbing all over it and droping ice-cream and ketchup on it.

I've seen it with my own eyes. No one complains though. (That I know of).

Bit of a sidetrack, but are those necessarily sacriligeous things to do in Hinduism? Ganesh is a pretty friendly god, he might be ok with children climbing all over him.

And you still refuse to understand what I'm saying.

They don't shout this purposely to insult other people.

If the cartoons were actually humourous and printed not as a part of a contest (and the paper had hypothetically printed comparable Jesus cartoons before) events would have turned out pretty much the same.

Bit of a sidetrack, but are those necessarily sacriligeous things to do in Hinduism? Ganesh is a pretty friendly god, he might be ok with children climbing all over him.

It is sacriligeous.

But don't worry....there won't be any riots over it. :D

I can give you plenty of examples of denigration of hindu icons by putting them on tissue paper, beer, lingerie and footwear etc.
And absolutely nothing stops you from complaining. If you can get a significant enough number of people together, you might convince some people to stop it.

I know there probably would be protests if Indian Muslims would start desecrating various statues and images in their Mosques. Both sides have shown a tendency to get angry (justified or not) in the last fifty years or so.

The issue is the tendency of violence..the ease at which the mobs could be worked up into a frenzy of violence...
That however is an entirely different issue, and one that I only barely touched on earlier when I was talking about governments in Muslim countries.

Outside the Middle East (and Pakistan), only Britain actually had a protest where violence was called for. You know yourself that we can look for those responsible best with LeT and their ilk, not with Muslims in general.

So we have found out that we can provoke violent Islamists into promoting or committing violence.

And all we had to do was insult a religion of more than a billion people, of which most want to do nothing else but live their lives in peace.

If the cartoons were actually humourous and printed not as a part of a contest (and the paper had hypothetically printed comparable Jesus cartoons before) events would have turned out pretty much the same.

No, they really wouldn't have. If the cartoons weren't intentionally made to offend, they wouldn't have been given nearly as much media attention, and most of the world's Muslims wouldn't even be aware of their existence. Especially if they weren't printed all at once. People have caricatured the prophet before without causing this chaos.

If the cartoons were actually humourous and printed not as a part of a contest (and the paper had hypothetically printed comparable Jesus cartoons before) events would have turned out pretty much the same.
Probably - although those news might not even have travelled as far as Britain. Afterall, pictures of Muhammed are nothing new.

But if it had happened in that way, I personally would have a different stance on the issue. Remember that all I'm putting forward here is my opinion on the behaviour of everyone involved.

snip

Jewish or not, this Western Standard publisher is a dumbass.

Look! I saw a protester burning a Canadian flag on TV! :rolleyes:

Fag....

That is nothing compared to this.

I do sympathize with the guy printing this. For decades, the Muslims have printed far worse about the Jews.


So you think jews should start emulating wacko muslims?

Hey! Why was it necessary to say this Jew was a canadian?

What did that contribute!??

The debate (and I'm starting to think that you know all this perfectly well) was about Islam becoming a force in the country. The self-censorship/showing respect to Islam was just one aspect of this.

JP as a right-wing paper has an audience of people who believe that Denmark is under attack from immigrants destroying the country. They see Jesus as something that is normal, and Muhammed as something that is foreign and suspicious at least.

As you said, it didn't happen in a vaccuum.

Oh, so it's their audience that's at fault now? The fact is that they are not the only newspaper to have dealt with this issue. And I already said that it is perhaps not the most tactful way that they could have appoached it, but regardless of their editorial position, they have the right to advance a position. And it was clearly more to do with than just a desire to publishoffensive cartoons, no matter how you characterize their motives.

Or perhaps you think that only people you agree with should be allowed to participate in national debate?


And you would mean that they went out there and published information? This is actually true, this actually happened. These are facts.

Cartoons, editorials and the like aren't

They published the Jesus cartoons themselves though, didn't they. If sensitivity was really the key issue, they would simply have omitted the pictures, and simply published the email, with a text reference to offensive caricatures. So maybe, wrongheaded as JP usually are, they do have a point: I don't know.

Further, if you are going to excuse them on the grounds that it was no-longer editorial but hard news, then every newspaper that chose to cover the JP situation should have been able to publish the muhammed cartoons on the same grounds.


Censorship is when other people make you not say certain things. Simple as that.

It's really not. But I am sick of explaining it. So whatever.

No journalist though (or at least I think so) actually would hold anything back because of protests threatening violence. The only reason they would hold something back is the perfectly valid one of not insulting people purposely.

Who decides what's insulting? Have you seen how some people react to perfectly accurate stories sometimes? And in all honesty, every news story contains editorial, you only have to read the Daily Telegraph next to the Guardian to figure that out.

Moreover, editorial position is a perfectly valid function of the free press. Maybe JP is a despicable rag, that's probably true, but they have the right to their voice too, and as I already said, they are at least pretextually articulating a legitmate point.

I am curious, if it had been a left wing magazine that had done this, would you be so vehement in your condemnation? From what you've said it seems not. Your root problem seems to be with JP, and its readers themselves, more than anything else.

I wasn't aware that I was a paper with a million or more readers. And, yes, I generally try not to offend others on purpose.

I was more alluding to your example of insulting fat people on the street - which is possibly offensive in of itself.

Anyway, I don't see us ever agreeing on this. Let's just agree to disagree. :)

(Though I feel the best thing for all parties would have just been to ignore JP, which would have made them look foolish. Now they have become martyrs).

And absolutely nothing stops you from complaining. If you can get a significant enough number of people together, you might convince some people to stop it.

So, if I gather a group of hindus and go on a rampage, you would be saying

"Look, they are violent and we should not be provoking them by offending their sensibilities" ?

http://www.hinduhumanrights.org/images/minellishoes.gif

This site has more such instances. You would be amazed at some of the stuff there

http://www.hinduhumanrights.org/hindufocus/hindufocus.htm

But where are the hindus going rioting and where is the outrage at offending hindu sensibilities?

Could it be that hindus are not offended? No. They are offended.


I know there probably would be protests if Indian Muslims would start desecrating various statues and images in their Mosques.

M.F.Hussein, an Indian muslim painter, drew the hindu Goddess Saraswati in the nude and claimed it was artistic freedom. Barring some noise from the usual quarters (the hindu right wing) nothing much happened. He is alive and well.

Outside the Middle East (and Pakistan), only Britain actually had a protest where violence was called for.

Buddy, that is all there is to the problematic parts of muslim world.

ME + Pakistan (and Bangladesh) + Pakistani descent muslims of Britain - this is the core support base for islamism.

Hey! Why was it necessary to say this Jew was a canadian?

What did that contribute!??

LOL.

Jewish or not, this Western Standard publisher is a dumbass.

Look! I saw a protester burning a Canadian flag on TV! :rolleyes:

Fag....
I do believe that Levant has issues and his rallying cry for "freedom of speech" is just a smoke screen that emanates from the bubbling cauldron of what I perceive to be his lack of tolerance.

No, they really wouldn't have. If the cartoons weren't intentionally made to offend, they wouldn't have been given nearly as much media attention, and most of the world's Muslims wouldn't even be aware of their existence. Especially if they weren't printed all at once. People have caricatured the prophet before without causing this chaos.

The cartoons would not have had this much attention if a certain Imam Abu Ladan had not gone on a tour to ME and incite them.

Again, what is to be noted is the behaviour of this mullah who is a Danish citizen, rooting for this mythical ummah and going on a tour to drum up support and the ease with which the mullahs were able to work up the mobs.

I believe that this article by a Canadian soldier (http://www.simonpole.ca/)serving in Afghanistan is truly reflective how I feel about this whole sad issue:

Everyone -- I mean everyone -- is censursing the Western Standard for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

Canadian Master Corporal Russell Storing writes a regular dispatch from Aghanistan, where he is serving, for the CBC. In the latest, he describes his disappointment over the cartoons' republication in Canada:

I had hoped that Canadians serving overseas would avoid most of the brunt of this cartoon controversy as mainstream Canadian media opted not to run the controversial cartoons. Everyday life can often be risky enough for our soldiers (at least in Afghanistan).

I followed the flow of comments about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and how western countries shouldn't be afraid of protesting or rioting Muslims; that it's our inherent right to print those cartoons. But I couldn't help noting that this slew of "freedoms" come from people who take for granted what our fathers and grandfathers paid for in blood, and what our own soldiers pay for today.

And he notes how the cartoons went against deeply held, historic Canadian values -- values our soldiers embody overseas by their very behaviour:

Deciding to not print those controversial cartoons has nothing to do with being cowed by fear of Islamic retribution; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense that Canadians have always been known for around the world.

When we as soldiers move into another country, whether to keep or enforce the peace, we respect the fact that the host country is unique in its beliefs and culture. We try to leave the country (at some point) with minimal cultural impact.

We respect their holidays and events; we go so far as to try not to eat or drink in front of Muslims during Ramadan out of respect for their culture, even while in our own camp. This has nothing to do with fear of offending them, but has to do with respect and our ability to live in a multi-cultural environment -- whether overseas or here in Canada.

Storing ends with a sincere plea that the Western Standard's extremism is not the new face of Canada:

By infringing on other people's freedoms of belief, religion or thought, as an expression of our own freedoms -- what have we accomplished? I truly hope that this isn't the kind of society that we are becoming.

I don't think Storing need have any fears on this score. The Prime Minister has censured the Western Standard. The nation's largest book chain won't put it on their shelves. And Air Canada refuses to have the magazine near their planes. Corporal Storing will return home to the same country he left. (Though perhaps one with an even greater sense of togetherness, and less tolerance of extremists, after this crisis).


WOW!!!

"Freedom of speech should hold nothing sacred, not even God." Funny enough that's from an issue from NS. I loved it so much i have it posted on several profiles. And I whole-heartedly agree. :) And that whole Jewsih thing? Weird. Would you have mentioned if he was a Christian or Atheist?

The problem is that the only people who could stop these cartoons being printed in Muslim nations are their governments - and those need the Jews and the West as scapegoats for their own failures.

We however here, and the Jews in Israel, we can decide at least what gets into our papers. And we don't have to go down to the same level as they do.

Unless of course we need scapegoats for our own failures.
You are right, but you should also note that the Jews in Israel haven't printed these cartoons once.

"Freedom of speech should hold nothing sacred, not even God." Funny enough that's from an issue from NS. I loved it so much i have it posted on several profiles. And I whole-heartedly agree. :) And that whole Jewsih thing? Weird. Would you have mentioned if he was a Christian or Atheist?
As I stated before, I believe that Ezra Levant has his own agenda to follow and that "freedom of speech" has nothing to do with it. The fact that he is Jewish and has seen the results of this tragedy so far leads me to believe that his intention is to incite hatred towards the Muslims.

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. Levant is as subtle as sledge hammer in regards to this issue.

Hopefully, the Muslims in Canada won't take the tainted bait.

I just want to make reference to a broadway show called "Avenue Q".
Everyone's a Little Bit Rascist

PRINCETON
Say, Kate, can I ask you a question?

KATE MONSTER
Sure!

PRINCETON
Well, you know Trekkie Monster upstairs?

KATE MONSTER
Uh huh!

PRINCETON
Well, he's Trekkie Monster, and you're Kate Monster.

KATE MONSTER
Right.

PRINCETON
You're both Monsters.

KATE MONSTER
Yeah.

PRINCETON
Are you two related?

KATE MONSTER
What! Princeton I'm surprised at you! I find that racist!

PRINCETON
Oh, well, I'm sorry! I was just asking.

KATE MONSTER
Well, it's a touchy subject. Now, now all Monsters are related.
What are you trying to say, huh? --
That we all look the same to you? Huh, huh, huh?

PRINCETON
No, no, no, not at all. I'm sorry, I guess that was a little racist.

KATE MONSTER
I should say so. You should be much more careful when you're
talking about the sensitive subject of race.

PRINCETON
Well, look who's talking!

KATE MONSTER
What do you mean?

PRINCETON
What about that special Monster School you told me about?

KATE MONSTER
What about it?

PRINCETON
Could someone like me go there?

KATE MONSTER
No, we don't want people like you --

PRINCETON
You see?!

(sung)

You're a little bit racist.

KATE MONSTER
Well, you're a little bit, too.

PRINCETON
I guess we're both a little bit racist.

KATE MONSTER
Admitting it is not an easy thing to do...

PRINCETON
But I guess it's true

KATE MONSTER
Between me and you, I think

BOTH
Everyone's a little bit
racist, sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go around committing
hate crimes.
Look around and
you will find,
no one's really
color-blind.
Maybe it's a fact
we all should face.
Everyone makes
judgments...
based on race.

(spoken)

PRINCETON
Not big judgments, like who to hire or who to buy a newspaper from --

KATE MONSTER
No!

PRINCETON
No, just little judgments like thinking that Mexican busboys
should learn to speak goddamn English!

KATE MONSTER
Right!

(sung)

BOTH
Everyone's a little
bit racist -- today,
so, everyone's a little
big racist -- okay!
Ethnic jokes might
be uncouth,
but you laugh because
they're based on truth.
Don't take them as
personal attacks.
Everyone enjoys them --
so relax!

(spoken)

PRINCETON
All right, stop me if you've heard this one.
There's a plane going down and there's only one parachute.
And there's a rabbi, a priest...

KATE MONSTER
... and a BLACK guy!

GARY COLEMAN
Whatchoo talkin' about Kate?

KATE MONSTER
Uh --

GARY COLEMAN
You were telling a BLACK joke!

PRINCETON
Well, sure, Gary, but lost of people tell black jokes...

GARY COLEMAN
I don't.

PRINCETON
Well, of course you don't -- you're black!
But I bet you tell Polack jokes, right?

GARY COLEMAN
Well, sure I do. Those stupid Polacks!

PRINCETON
Don't you think that's a little racist?

GARY COLEMAN
Well, damn, I guess you're right.

(sung)

KATE MONSTER
You're a little bit racist.

GARY COLEMAN
Well, you're a little bit, too.

PRINCETON
We're all a little bit racist.

GARY COLEMAN
I think that I would have to agree with you.

PRINCETON & KATE MONSTER
We're glad you do.

GARY COLEMAN
It's sad, but true!
Everyone's a little bit racist -- all right!
Bigotry has never been exclusively white --

ALL
If we all could
just admit
that we are racist
a little bit,
even though we all
know that it's wrong,
maybe it would help
us get along!

(spoken)

PRINCETON
Christ, do I feel good!

GARY COLEMAN
Now there was a fine upstanding black man!

PRINCETON
Who?

GARY COLEMAN
Jesus Christ!

KATE MONSTER
But Gary, Jesus was white!

GARY COLEMAN
No, Jesus was black.

KATE MONSTER
No, Jesus was white!

GARY COLEMAN
No, I'm pretty sure Jesus was black!

PRINCETON
Guys -- Jesus was Jewish!

BRIAN
Hey guys, what are you laughing about?

GARY COLEMAN
Racism!

BRIAN
Cool.

CHRISTMAS EVE
Brian! You come back here! You take out lecycuraburs!

PRINCETON
What's that mean?

BRIAN
Um. Recyclables.

(Everyone laughs)

Hey, don't laugh at her! How many languages do you speak?

KATE MONSTER
Oh, come off it, Brian!

(sung)

Everyone's a little bit racist.

BRIAN
I'm not!

PRINCETON
Oh, no?

BRIAN
Nope! How many oriental wives have you got?

CHRISTMAS EVE
What? Brian!

PRINCETON
Brian, buddy,
where you been?
The term is Asian-American!

CHRISTMAS EVE
I know you are
no intending to be,
but calling me
oriental -- offensive to me!

(spoken)

BRIAN
I'm sorry honey, I love you.

CHRISTMAS EVE
And I love you.

BRIAN
But you're racist, too.

CHRISTMAS EVE
Yes, I know.

(sung)

The Jews have all
the money
and the whites have
all the power
and I'm always in
taxi-cab with driver
who no shower!

PRINCETON
Me too!

KATE MONSTER
Me too!

GARY COLEMAN
I can't even get a taxi!

ALL
Everyone's a little bit
racist, it's true.
But everyone is just about
as racist as you!
If we all could just admit
that we are racist a little bit,
and everyone
stopped being so P.C.,
maybe we could
live in -- harmony!

CHRISTMAS EVE
Ev'lyone's a ritter bit lacist!



:)

Or perhaps you think that only people you agree with should be allowed to participate in national debate?
:rolleyes:
It must be so easy to live in your world...

They published the Jesus cartoons themselves though, didn't they.
They did, but I don't think you could make a case that somehow this signifies ill-intent towards the Christian community.

Further, if you are going to excuse them on the grounds that it was no-longer editorial but hard news, then every newspaper that chose to cover the JP situation should have been able to publish the muhammed cartoons on the same grounds.
Some did, and I'm okay with that.

It's really not. But I am sick of explaining it. So whatever.
cen·sor·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snsr-shp)
n.
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
2. The office or authority of a Roman censor.
3. Psychology. Prevention of disturbing or painful thoughts or feelings from reaching consciousness except in a disguised form.

cen·sor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snsr)
n.
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
I'd love to hear your alternative.

Moreover, editorial position is a perfectly valid function of the free press. Maybe JP is a despicable rag, that's probably true, but they have the right to their voice too, and as I already said, they are at least pretextually articulating a legitmate point.
Not that you would have made a case for that. All you have done is ask questions, which is fine in and for itself, but not enough to prove a point.
You would have to ignore a lot of context (and a lot of JP's previous publishings) to make a case that JP somehow didn't mean to insult Muslims by publishing Muhammed with a bomb on his head.

Your root problem seems to be with JP, and its readers themselves, more than anything else.
My root problem is with people who think that attacking the religion of Islam is a valid way of dealing with terrorism, with people who believe Islam threatens their way of life and with people who generalise all Muslims to fit their black and white world view.
This whole scandal is just an example of all three things combined.

Anyway, I don't see us ever agreeing on this. Let's just agree to disagree. :)
I suppose so.

It is sacriligeous.

But don't worry....there won't be any riots over it. :D
Maybe not? However, for some perspective, can you answer this:

What has caused violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India and in Pakistan?

So, if I gather a group of hindus and go on a rampage, you would be saying "Look, they are violent and we should not be provoking them by offending their sensibilities"?
No, I would say the same thing I have said about the violent protestors in this case.
Violence is and always will be uncalled for. If you want to protest, fine. But burning an embassy, or advocating violence is not cool, and they should face the relevant criminal charges.

Buddy, that is all there is to the problematic parts of muslim world.
But this particular case is due to their governments actively promoting these protests in order to look like they are safeguarding Islam, and to let people vent some of the anger really caused by the oppression towards Danish cartoonists.
That's not a religious problem, it's a political one. The whole Islamism thing is.

You are right, but you should also note that the Jews in Israel haven't printed these cartoons once.
And that's a good thing, and I applaud them for it.

Maybe not? However, for some perspective, can you answer this:

What has caused violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India and in Pakistan?

Uhh, the muslims? They're not the friendliest bunch, you know.

Uhh, the muslims? They're not the friendliest bunch, you know.
I was asking Aryavartha, who is a Hindu, but if you could elaborate more, I would be interested in your response.

Maybe not? However, for some perspective, can you answer this:

What has caused violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India and in Pakistan?

Historical baggage and politicians and the two-nation theory.

There are no hindus (and Sikhs) left in Pakistan for clashes with muslims. They pretty much "cleansed" them from around 30% before partition to around 3% now.

In India, hindus and muslims usually get by fine for the most part in most areas. There is increasing feelings of "appeasement of muslims" by hindu right wing sympathisers and the feeling of "alienation" by muslim groups. But this in itself does not lead to violent clashes.

Violent clashes - as in riots - almost always follows a trigger - which would be the result of Saudi funding and Pakistani incitement and certain Indian muslims complying.

Uhh, the muslims? They're not the friendliest bunch, you know.Seriously Kievan-Prussia, I am sick and tired of your idiotic racist comments about muslims. How does this comment contribute to this debate?

That's not a religious problem, it's a political one. The whole Islamism thing is.

I did not claim it to be a religious problem either.

OT just for FYI: If you had noticed my posting history, I do not have problem with islam, especially its concept of the mystery of ahadiyyat in wahdaniyyat, which is quite similar to the central tenet of Vaishnavism (the achinthya beda abeda tattva).

I have problems with the interpretation of islam by mullahs with vested interests.

The Jewish publisher of Western Standard, Ezra Levant, has decided to reprint the infamous Muslim cartoons in his magazine, despite the urging of caution by the Canadian Prime Minister to be respectful of others beliefs.

After the release of the cartoons, Harper had this to say (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060214/cartoons_060214):

"Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others," Stephen Harper said in a written statement, his first comments on the incendiary cartoons since the furor first erupted.

"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others.

"I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."

I believe that Levant is desirous of fueling the fire and that his publication of the cartoons has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with his disrespect of Islam.

I found the following cartoon??? on the Western Standard web site and fail to find any humour in it at all:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/02/more_cartoons.html

Canada is generally a peaceful and respecting country. Perhaps Levant, while persuing his own agenda, would like to change that?

Thoughts or comments. Please leave your hate or anger at the door, Thanks.



This has everything and nothing to do with him being Jewish. People have to look at the broader spectrum. EL is doing this in reaction to Iran having a holocaust denial conference and a contest to for holocaust cartoons. Stop blaming the Jewish community or Jews in general when radicals such as Ahmadineajad start pledging to wipe us off the map. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!!!!
EL is using free speech to show that while 1 billion muslims live on this planet, some have gone of the reservation (don't mean to offend any native americans). Normally I think right wingers are right wingers and are nuts but in this case I think EL isn't right wing or even anti-muslim but saying "hey look, you publish the holocaust denial crap in Iran, Syria, Australia, etc... I will publish Mohammed Cartoons here in Canada".

Freedom of speech is a bitch isn't, especially when you're wrong!!!!!!!

-

They did, but I don't think you could make a case that somehow this signifies ill-intent towards the Christian community.


Politiken published the cartoons about jesus and the rejection email which gave JPs opinion that the cartoons were offensive and may cause outrage. Now, either: a) The cartoons - as described in the email - are actually offensive, and politiken published anyway, believing they would offend, which does signify ill-intent; or, b) they aren't actually offensive in politiken's judgment, or likely to cause outrage in Politiken's view, which lends credence to JPs later explaination that they weren't published because they were crap.

If a) then there is a double standard, which you and Politiken are happy to accept, which was one of JPs point anyway, which sort of negates your whole argument about it solely being about offending people.

If b) then JP isn't actually operating under a double standard, because had the jesus cartoons not been crap, they may well have published them, which again negates your view on this.

Like I said, it's not as simple as you want to make it sound.

As to your point about people dealing with terrorism by insulting islam, I think that it is a non-sequitur. I don't see this really as a terrorism issue per se at all. It's about freedom of artistic expression. However badly it has been handled. I don't find many others that I talk to believe that it has anything to do with the so-called war on terror either.

The cartoons - as described in the email - are actually offensive, and politiken published anyway, believing they would offend, which does signify ill-intent...
It would probably be this option, but I don't think it would be because of ill-intent.
As I said before, if you publish offensive material as part of a story to highlight what the outrage is all about, then that is not ill-intent.

When the BBC shows a picture of a JP issue with the cartoons, then BBC doesn't do that to promote JP or their message, but to report about the scandal. Which is perfectly valid, and very different from starting the cartoons in the first place.

I found the following cartoon??? on the Western Standard web site and fail to find any humour in it at all:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/02/more_cartoons.html


Thoughts or comments. Please leave your hate or anger at the door, Thanks.

Are you kidding? they are really funny! I especially like the muhammad Ali one.

This has everything and nothing to do with him being Jewish. People have to look at the broader spectrum. EL is doing this in reaction to Iran having a holocaust denial conference and a contest to for holocaust cartoons. Stop blaming the Jewish community or Jews in general when radicals such as Ahmadineajad start pledging to wipe us off the map. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!!!!
EL is using free speech to show that while 1 billion muslims live on this planet, some have gone of the reservation (don't mean to offend any native americans). Normally I think right wingers are right wingers and are nuts but in this case I think EL isn't right wing or even anti-muslim but saying "hey look, you publish the holocaust denial crap in Iran, Syria, Australia, etc... I will publish Mohammed Cartoons here in Canada".

Freedom of speech is a bitch isn't, especially when you're wrong!!!!!!!

-
Ezra Levant wants to come across as a defender of "freedom of speech" but I do believe that he has a hidden agenda.

Publisher defends decision to reprint cartoons (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060213/cartoons_060213/20060213?hub=TopStories)

A small chain of independent bookstores has decided against selling the latest issue of the Calgary-based Western Standard magazine, which features incendiary cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

"We felt it was deemed offensive by Muslims and that it doesn't serve freedom of expression to flout Muslim sensibilities," Colleen Boschmann, manager of the McNally Robinson store in Calgary, told The Canadian Press.

"We didn't think we would be expressing anything except perhaps the symbolic ... offensive right to express whatever we want," she said, adding the store sells less than a dozen copies of the publication on a monthly basis.

"Basically our policy (is) freedom of expression, yes. But freedom of gratuitous provocation? No."

Exactly my sentiments in this matter.

Levant's reply:

Although Islam forbids depictions of its prophet, "I don't follow Muslim law, I follow Queen Elizabeth's law," Levant, whose conservative magazine is published 24 times a year, told CTV Newsnet.

"I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution, and there are two key parts to the Canadian constitution I'm relying on: one is freedom of expression and the other is cultural diversity (enshrined in) the Constitution."

That is all well and fine, but what happens if others want to express their "freedom of expression" at the perceived expense of his people, then that is whole different ball of wax. In the following article, Levant suggests that Malcolm Thomas (former NDP candidate) "is unfit for public office ":

Racist rant from left (http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/06-17-04/discussion.cgi.65.html)

Media turns deaf ear to lunacy from NDP camp

By Ezra Levant - Canadian Zionist -

Why hasn't Malcolm Thomas been kicked out of the NDP?

Thomas is better known by his adopted name, Malcolm Azania. That's the made-up name of a fictional African country; like naming oneself Malcolm Atlantis. Thomas sometimes goes by another alias, Minister Faust. That's when he's on his radio show, called The Terrordome, in which he slips into a lilt reminiscent of his hero, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the racial separatist Nation of Islam.

Thomas also counts as his inspiration other black supremacists like the rap group Public Enemy, famous for their anti-Semitic rap songs. One of their more tasteful little ditties was a rap questioning the Holocaust, called Swindler's Lust. Classy.

Welcome to left-wing, campus radicalism. But for the past few months Thomas has been better known as the NDP candidate for Edmonton-Strathcona. He's trying to go to Parliament.

Which is why his rantings of the past decade -- which were no secret to the masochistic few who listen to the University of Alberta's student radio station -- have now become known to the public at large.

Colby Cosh, a columnist for the National Post, dug up some statements Thomas published during his college years. One online essay, entitled Jews: Enemies? Friends? reads like the Farrakhan speeches that Thomas used to play endlessly on his radio show.

Demonization of the Jews as the cause of black suffering; implications the Jews control the Jewish controlled media. Farrakhan's favourite was to call them the "Jewspapers," especially the "Jew York Times."

If a Conservative candidate was discovered making racist accusations against "the Jews" would he still be carrying the party banner into the election? {Ernst Zundel is in TORTURE prison}

How did the media treat it? The story received excited local coverage for a day -- but then fell off the radar screen. If a Conservative candidate said the things Thomas said -- and not just in one e-mail, but for years in fact -- would the media have dropped it so quickly?

Even if the Conservatives fired the candidate, wouldn't the CBC National lead with the story, and the Toronto Star plaster it on its front page?

Thomas is unfit for public office -- frankly, his Farrakhanite rants on U of A's radio station are an embarrassment to that university.

But there's something bigger here that Thomas' case reveals. The Left has changed. {notice in both articles the use of "Holocaust"} -[ http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/061604A.shtml ] -

It would once be unthinkable for the NDP to countenance such intolerance against "Gods Chosen People" - Jews. They were once the most alert to anti-Semitism, scrutinizing the Right for it.

But the NDP of today is a reflection of the Left of today: Jews are no longer regarded as protected minorities, but a "class" to be attacked. The Leftist worldview used to be backing the U.S.S.R. vs. the U.S., or the underdog Jews vs. neo-Nazi skinheads .

The U.S.S.R. is gone; skinheads are rare. The dialectic has shifted. The U.S. -- especially since 9/11 -- is still the enemy, and America's ally, Israel and the Jews, are now added to the list of "oppressors" in the mind of the Left. The Left's new class of victim is Muslim Arabs, or like Farrakhan, black Muslim radicals.

It's not just the Jews who have been demoted in the Left's new hierarchy. Feminists have been, too. Since when did the NDP countenance the kind of gender apartheid of Wahhabi Islam? Look at the NDP today -- radical candidate Monia Mazigh wears a burka when she campaigns in Ottawa.

That's quite a turn from bra-burnings.

Judy Rebick and Bob Rae, call your office.

Freedom of expression/speech? I call it first class hypocrisy.

For those who dont know about canadian politics and geography: Calgary is in Alberta, which is roughly analagous to texas in the united states.

I think you mis-understood his call entirely. It was not for Canada to reject or get rid of that particular member of Nation of Islam it was just a call not to get him elected to parliament. Freedom of Speech. The reasons why are blatant in the rhetoric of Nation of Islam (which has often been reputed as a cult by mainstream Islamic leaders) which is rapidly anti-semitic and filled with hate messages towards everyone.

Ezra Letant has to be intelligent enough to know that Canada is not going to stifle someones right to free speech. But it never hurts to call for it. Why, because it raises the issues. The issue of "why are people calling for this guy to be silenced"?. It is a tactic, not an actual call. You have to see the bigger picture.

It would probably be this option, but I don't think it would be because of ill-intent.
As I said before, if you publish offensive material as part of a story to highlight what the outrage is all about, then that is not ill-intent.


And yet, surprisingly, and despite it's clear determination to let its readers judge for themselves, politiken has been able to avoid publishing the muhammed cartoons when covering the aftermath of the JP story.

As I said, there was no clear reason to publish the jesus cartoons, the email was more than enough. Politiken did so anyway. (And despite not publishing the muhammed cartoons). Which was exactly the double standard that sparked this whole debate in the first place. (At politiken's instigation I may add). So really, given that it actually exists - as demonstrated by politiken's very own actions - you can't just sit there and say "this is all about offending muslims." JP may have in fact had a valid journalistic point with this. Whatever their other motives were. (And I am sure there was more than one single motivation for the whole thing).

As I keep trying to tell you: This is more than just a matter of JP + Christian right v. Muslim world.

The world must be a very simple place for you.

I think you mis-understood his call entirely. It was not for Canada to reject or get rid of that particular member of Nation of Islam it was just a call not to get him elected to parliament. Freedom of Speech. The reasons why are blatant in the rhetoric of Nation of Islam (which has often been reputed as a cult by mainstream Islamic leaders) which is rapidly anti-semitic and filled with hate messages towards everyone.

Ezra Letant has to be intelligent enough to know that Canada is not going to stifle someones right to free speech. But it never hurts to call for it. Why, because it raises the issues. The issue of "why are people calling for this guy to be silenced"?. It is a tactic, not an actual call. You have to see the bigger picture.
I do see the bigger picture and that is why I started this thread. Levant can scream "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression" at the top of his lungs and that doesn't bother me. His hidden agenda on the other hand is bothersome.

Since when did the NDP countenance the kind of gender apartheid of Wahhabi Islam? Look at the NDP today -- radical candidate Monia Mazigh wears a burka when she campaigns in Ottawa.
Why should Levant, champion of "freedom of expression?" give a damn what this lady represents or even what she wears for that matter. He is a hypocrite plain and simple. He obviously is inviting confrontation.

In regards to his publishing of the cartoons, knowing full well the previous results, I question his sincerity and suggest that he has done so to incite hatred rather than to inform his readers.

No one has yet explained why its important that this jewish guy be identified as canadian...

What did it contribute to this story about strife between the muslim religion and the christian and jewish religions?

No one has yet explained why its important that this jewish guy be identified as canadian...

What did it contribute to this story about strife between the muslim religion and the christian and jewish religions?
well, Levant happens to live in Canada and has just made a difficult job of the Canadian Army in Afganistan a whole lot more difficult.

That's why we mention he's Canadian. ;)

So you think jews should start emulating wacko muslims?
No, but they do need to point out the double standard. The Jews are above this crap. The Muslims on the other hand love blood libel and use it to incite hate. It proves they are an uncivilized group.

No, but they do need to point out the double standard. The Jews are above this crap. The Muslims on the other hand love blood libel and use it to incite hate. It proves they are an uncivilized group.
Do they not have houses, villages and cities?
Do they not have an organized religion?
Do they not have a language?

They are civilized. Their civilization may be less advance than the west, they can have bloody customs, etc. but to call them uncivilized is a lie.

Do they not have houses, villages and cities?
Do they not have an organized religion?
Do they not have a language?

They are civilized. Their civilization may be less advance than the west, they can have bloody customs, etc. but to call them uncivilized is a lie.
I don't call "honor killings" or rape victims civilized

I don't call suicide bombing buses civilized.

I don't consider cutting the hands of accused thieves civilized

I don't consider printing blood libel that is worse than the crap the Czars used to incite pogroms civilized.

I don't consider rioting over cartoons civilized

I don't consider beheading reporters because they are Jewish civilized.

I don't consider celebrating terrorist attacks like 9/11 civilized.

I don't consider throwing stones at prayers at the Wailing Wall civilized.

I don't consider trying to finish Hitler's work civilized.

I can go on forever. They aren't civilized. They are barbaric.

Thoughts or comments. Please leave your hate or anger at the door, Thanks.In other words, don't respond if you don't agree or if freedom of the pressi si really important to you.

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

Test for you. See how many Christians call for this guy's beheading. See how many Christians burn down embassies. See how many people die in Christian protests as a result of the release of this movie that basically says Jesus never existed and that Christianity is a lie.

I don't call "honor killings" or rape victims civilized

I don't call suicide bombing buses civilized.

I don't consider cutting the hands of accused thieves civilized

I don't consider printing blood libel that is worse than the crap the Czars used to incite pogroms civilized.

I don't consider rioting over cartoons civilized

I don't consider beheading reporters because they are Jewish civilized.

I don't consider celebrating terrorist attacks like 9/11 civilized.

I don't consider throwing stones at prayers at the Wailing Wall civilized.

I don't consider trying to finish Hitler's work civilized.

I can go on forever. They aren't civilized. They are barbaric.
Then I suggest you go back and read what the definition of civilization and civilized is.

Then I suggest you go back and read what the definition of civilization and civilized is.
I love this tactic. Let's deflect the very blatant and obvious point of his post and divert our attention to a semantic argument about the definition of the word "civilized."

But just for arguments sake, here's the first definition in Webster's:

1. To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.

Ok lay it out for me, What is Levants "hidden agenda". Lay it all out for me.

The goal of Islam is the destruction of industrial civilization, and a return to the Middle Ages. The cartoons were merely this month's excuse for Muslim violence. Next month, the Muslims will find another "provocation" to get upset about.

One of the primary strategies of Muslims is a victimhood complex. Ever notice how nothing that goes wrong in the Islamic world is ever the fault of Muslims? It's always America's fault, Israel's fault, the Jews' fault.

We of the West should not apologize for our wealth, our scientific advancement, our liberal democracies, our equal rights for women. Not to Muslims, or anyone else. If Muslims think they are being ill-treated in Europe, then the EU needs to tell them to get out of Europe, and don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

The goal of Islam is the destruction of industrial civilization, and a return to the Middle Ages. The cartoons were merely this month's excuse for Muslim violence. Next month, the Muslims will find another "provocation" to get upset about.

One of the primary strategies of Muslims is a victimhood complex. Ever notice how nothing that goes wrong in the Islamic world is ever the fault of Muslims? It's always America's fault, Israel's fault, the Jews' fault.

We of the West should not apologize for our wealth, our scientific advancement, our liberal democracies, our equal rights for women. Not to Muslims, or anyone else.I agree. :)


If Muslims think they are being ill-treated in Europe, then the EU needs to tell them to get out of Europe, and don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
Here's where you lose me. Thouigh I differ from ost of the Muslim apologists around here that seem to think Muslim extremism is some small aboration that is just very loud - I happen to think Muslim extremism is the official voice of Islam because Muslim extremists enjoy broad popular support in the Muslim world - I do agree that the majority really do just want a job and to have a home. What I think needs to be done is for them to be assimilated. Liek everyone else is. At least here in the US.

I love this tactic. Let's deflect the very blatant and obvious point of his post and divert our attention to a semantic argument about the definition of the word "civilized."

But just for arguments sake, here's the first definition in Webster's:

1. To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.
Someone calls some people that can be defined as Middle-Eastern Muslims uncivilized.

I called on him to explain how they were uncivilized. He gave me some differences on their civilization's way of doing things and our civilization's way of doing things.

That is not how one's define people civilized or not.

I fail to see how I skirted the issue. Sure, it's a semantic argument and tangential to the OP's article but how can you discuss a topic if we don't use the same definitions of terms?

Besides, calling someone "uncivilized", "liberal", "conservative" or other derogatory terms is asking for diverting tactics since he's clearly not going to discuss the topic rationaly anyways.

Then I suggest you go back and read what the definition of civilization and civilized is.
In other words your response mearly means the following: I don't have anything real to pull out of my ass and refute this argument so I'm going to argue the meaning of words.

In other words your response mearly means the following: I don't have anything real to pull out of my ass and refute this argument so I'm going to argue the meaning of words.
Your argument was that the muslim were uncivilized. You used the justification that they react differently than the jews to some provocation as your argument. I destoyed your argument by explaining what constitute a civilization and how you cannot call them uncivilized.

Don't believe me? Here's your post:
No, but they do need to point out the double standard. The Jews are above this crap. The Muslims on the other hand love blood libel and use it to incite hate. It proves they are an uncivilized group.

I refuted your argument quite nicely from where I'm sitting.

Someone calls some people that can be defined as Middle-Eastern Muslims uncivilized.

I called on him to explain how they were uncivilized. He gave me some differences on their civilization's way of doing things and our civilization's way of doing things.

That is not how one's define people civilized or not.

I fail to see how I skirted the issue. Sure, it's a semantic argument and tangential to the OP's article but how can you discuss a topic if we don't use the same definitions of terms?

Besides, calling someone "uncivilized", "liberal", "conservative" or other derogatory terms is asking for diverting tactics since he's clearly not going to discuss the topic rationaly anyways.
Bullshit. You're the one skirting the issue, not IDF. He was very clear to anyone follwing the argument. He said they were uncivilized. You gave a list of reasons that you felt they were. He gave a list of practices in the Muslim world that he, and any reasonable person, considers barbaric. You said that those things do not make them uncivilized. Any reasonable interpretation of the definition I posted from the dictionary:

1. To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.

Says he's right. Let's make it simple. Accept this definition of the word civilized and move on from the dictionary debate and continue to make excuses for some of the widely accepted barbaric acts routinely practiced in the Islamic world. It's much more fun to read.

In other words, don't respond if you don't agree or if freedom of the pressi si really important to you.
I never said that. I invited debate without the usually dash of anger and/or hate.

Test for you. See how many Christians call for this guy's beheading. See how many Christians burn down embassies. See how many people die in Christian protests as a result of the release of this movie that basically says Jesus never existed and that Christianity is a lie.
That is not the point of this thread.

Let's not tie ourselves in a knot over what is civilization and what it is not.

A lot of people in the ME and people of former colonies do not have high opinion on western civ.

We have to judge a people on the standards that they say they are supposed to be following, not on the standards that you hold dear.


The goal of Islam is the destruction of industrial civilization, and a return to the Middle Ages

Ignorant nonsense. Islam is a religion which is used a political tool by islamists. The enemy is the islamist, not the muslim. We would be doing ourselves a disservice by chasing ghosts due to our misunderstanding.

Bullshit. You're the one skirting the issue, not IDF. He was very clear to anyone follwing the argument. He said they were uncivilized. You gave a list of reasons that you felt they were. He gave a list of practices in the Muslim world that he, and any reasonable person, considers barbaric. You said that those things do not make them uncivilized. Any reasonable interpretation of the definition I posted from the dictionary:

1. To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.

Says he's right. Let's make it simple. Accept this definition of the word civilized and move on from the dictionary debate and continue to make excuses for some of the widely accepted barbaric acts routinely practiced in the Islamic world. It's much more fun to read.
To raise from barbarism to an enlightened stage of development; bring out of a primitive or savage state.

I see the muslim world as such and here's why:
They have a social order,
They have a set of laws,
They have some academic and religious thinkers,
They invented such things as a language, mathematical concepts and other "enlightened" trappings. In fact, for a while there, they were the most advanced civilization.
They interact with other civilizations with other means than violence. Not always, but they do have diplomats.

So, explain to me again why they shouldn't be considered a civilization?

That is not the point of this thread.
It is the absolute point to the entire controversy. It is pointless to discuss the whole cartoon situation without addressing the difference between how different people react to things like this. The whole point is that Muslims are reacting to this with the kind of violence that no other community that I am aware of reacts. If everyone in the world reacted to cartoons that offended them by burning down building and calling for people's heads there wopuld be no controversy. The fact that the Muslim world does is what makes this important and is why people are justified when they call the reaction "uncivilized."

At what point does it become relevant to this conversation that Ezra Levant is a professional shit disturber? He's always pulling controversial stunts to draw attention to his rag, The Western Standard and the Shotgun blog. He's not doing this in support of free speech so much as being a sensationalist to drive page views.

Among other things, Ezra is well known for his anti-Canadian rhetoric (he's a strong Alberta separatist), for his book supporting the privatization of the Canada Health Plan (Youthquake), another book on how 'Canadians are out to destroy your personal liberties' (The War on Fun), and initiating "It's the stupid Charter" buttons (anti-SSM).

Type "Ezra Levant Watch" into Google, and you'll find lots of links to bloggers etc that make it their mission to regularly debunk his statements. (Although you'll also find Free Dominion freepers who hope he'll turn his rhetoric up a notch.)

So, explain to me again why they shouldn't be considered a civilization?
Because in 2001 a woman had an affair in Nigeria. She got pregnant from that affair. She was brought on trial and sentenced to death by stoning, not because she lived in a dictatorship and the oppresive court wanted to flex its power to scare teh citizens into submission, but because tens of thousands of Muslims protested outside the court to demand that she die for her sins and that the baby be given to its father, who was absolutely as guilty a she was but according to law could only be convicted if three men witnessed the transgression. She of course was convicted even though no one witnessed it because she got pregnant and so could not deny it. The point to this story is that her stoning was demanded, not by the court or the government which was inclined to give her a pass, but by the average Muslim citizen. I call this barbaric.

In 2002 a 15 year old girl was seen walking with an 11 year old boy in Pakistan. Because she was of a different social class she was charged with a crime. Her sentence, handed down by the "village elders," was for her family to be forced to watch while they all gang raped her. Afterwards, her family cast her out of their home because she was now dirty and defiled. This is the standard of justice at the neighborhood level. Again, this was not the government that did this, this was the village that demanded it. This was the will of the people. She walked with an 11 year old boy so lets gang rape her and then kick her out of the village. I call this barbaric.

This year, Syria's high court upheld the one year sentance of a man who lit his sister on fire because she had sex out of wedlock. In Syria a one years sentence is all you get if you burn a female family member for having sex out of wedlock because honor killings for the family's sake are considered a minor offense. Even in the case of rape, by the way. I call this barbaric.

In 2006, hundreds of thousands of Muslims all over the Muslim world have killed now dozens of people and burned buildings down and called for the beheadings of people because they are offended by cartoons published nearly six months earlier. This is unprecedented. No other religion in modern history has reacted so violently to a press item. I call this barbaric.

These events are in absolutely no way isolated events. They happen every day in the Muslim world. Ask people who fight for women's rights in teh Muslim world. Ask Human Righst watch. Don't take my word for it. I'd ask you to research it yourself, but I think you probably know its true. That is why, though trappings of civilization have come from the Middle East, I think labeling much of the Muslim world as uncivilized is fair. Done with arguing over definitions yet?

Yes, Psychotic Dan, those things are horrible and deporable. But does "civilization" necessarily mean that they have the same social ethics as we?. The Aztec civilization certainly didn't (human sacrifice, etc), but their culture was still considered a civilization. What about the civilization of ancient Rome? They stoned and crucified people. Fed them to lions. Still considered a civilization.

Yes, Psychotic Dan, those things are horrible and deporable. But does "civilization" necessarily mean that they have the same social ethics as we?. The Aztec civilization certainly didn't (human sacrifice, etc), but their culture was still considered a civilization. What about the civilization of ancient Rome? They stoned and crucified people. Fed them to lions. Still considered a civilization.
*sighs*

IDF did not say they weren't a civilization. He said they werent' civilized. Again, I think the axamples he gave and the ones I gav shows that they may be a civilization but they are not civilized in the sense of the word he meant. Any reasonable person who read what he wrote knows exactly what he meant. To try to obfuscate it only looks like a desperate attempt to avoid the real debate here which is, of course, about the fundamental difference between Muslim and Western culture and how much of an allowance should Western culture make for Muslim sensabilities regarding the freedoms we hold dear. I hold that absolutely no allowance at all should be made for their sensabilities at all. If they don't like to be offended then they shouldn't read our newspapers. I don't think one single law should in anyway be changed and no government should in anyway abridge the freedom of the press in order to prevent Muslims from being offended. Freedom of the press is too important to our way of life. If Muslims want to demonstrate peacfully against a bunch of cartoons, fine. If they want to kill eachother in Pakistan because fo some cartoons that were published in Denmark, again, fine. But I think if they ask for us to censor our newspapers we should tell them to get bent.

*sighs*

IDF did not say they weren't a civilization. He said they werent' civilized.
Ah. I was not basing your response on what IDF said, I was basing it on your quote of what East Canuck said, which is what made me believe that you were claiming that a culture that performs uncivilized acts could not be considered a civilization.

Now that we're not arguing about the dictionary no one wants to play. :(

Because in 2001 a woman had an affair in Nigeria. She got pregnant from that affair. She was brought on trial and sentenced to death by stoning, not because she lived in a dictatorship and the oppresive court wanted to flex its power to scare teh citizens into submission, but because tens of thousands of Muslims protested outside the court to demand that she die for her sins and that the baby be given to its father, who was absolutely as guilty a she was but according to law could only be convicted if three men witnessed the transgression. She of course was convicted even though no one witnessed it because she got pregnant and so could not deny it. The point to this story is that her stoning was demanded, not by the court or the government which was inclined to give her a pass, but by the average Muslim citizen. I call this barbaric.

In 2002 a 15 year old girl was seen walking with an 11 year old boy in Pakistan. Because she was of a different social class she was charged with a crime. Her sentence, handed down by the "village elders," was for her family to be forced to watch while they all gang raped her. Afterwards, her family cast her out of their home because she was now dirty and defiled. This is the standard of justice at the neighborhood level. Again, this was not the government that did this, this was the village that demanded it. This was the will of the people. She walked with an 11 year old boy so lets gang rape her and then kick her out of the village. I call this barbaric.

This year, Syria's high court upheld the one year sentance of a man who lit his sister on fire because she had sex out of wedlock. In Syria a one years sentence is all you get if you burn a female family member for having sex out of wedlock because honor killings for the family's sake are considered a minor offense. Even in the case of rape, by the way. I call this barbaric.

In 2006, hundreds of thousands of Muslims all over the Muslim world have killed now dozens of people and burned buildings down and called for the beheadings of people because they are offended by cartoons published nearly six months earlier. This is unprecedented. No other religion in modern history has reacted so violently to a press item. I call this barbaric.

These events are in absolutely no way isolated events. They happen every day in the Muslim world. Ask people who fight for women's rights in teh Muslim world. Ask Human Righst watch. Don't take my word for it. I'd ask you to research it yourself, but I think you probably know its true. That is why, though trappings of civilization have come from the Middle East, I think labeling much of the Muslim world as uncivilized is fair. Done with arguing over definitions yet?
Could you please provide credible links to these above stories, other than the ones about burning the embassies?

Yay for stereotyping your own country and countrymen.

Yay for stereotyping your own country and countrymen.
I don't see this as stereotypical of Canadian Jews at all. Perhaps if you read the thread, you will have a better understanding?

I truly believe that there is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and what could be classed as hate literature. I believe that these so called cartoons are just that.....hate literature.
And I believe hat literature should be legal, the same way I believe pornography should be legal. Both offend people, no? Tough. They can live with it.

I see this (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/15/western-standard-060215.html) as stereotypical of the Western Blaggard, however.

And I believe hat literature should be legal, the same way I believe pornography should be legal. Both offend people, no? Tough. They can live with it.
Why would you support hate literature?

I see this (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/15/western-standard-060215.html) as stereotypical of the Western Blaggard, however.
Yes indeed. The more I see of Mr. Levant, the less there is to like about the man, and his ideals.

Why would you support hate literature?
I don't support it. I just don't have a problem with it. If I don't like it, I won't look. The world would be a lot better place if everyone could do that.
It's not as if someone is shoving in my face, after all.

I don't support it. I just don't have a problem with it. If I don't like it, I won't look. The world would be a lot better place if everyone could do that.
It's not as if someone is shoving in my face, after all.
What if YOU were the target of this hate literature? Would you still support hate literature? And yes you "support" hate literature by stating that it should be legal?

Could you please provide credible links to these above stories, other than the ones about burning the embassies?

I remember that story. It was in the newspapers in 2004. Here's your credible link. Note how the page says it got its info from cnn and amnesty.org.

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1029

As for the others, I couldn't find the actual stories, so here's a bit on honor killings:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html

Some notable points:

"Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic, or religious group. The owner of the property has the right to decide its fate. The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold."

"Honor killings are perpetrated for a wide range of offenses. Marital infidelity, pre-marital sex, flirting, or even failing to serve a meal on time can all be perceived as impugning the family honor."

"Amnesty International has reported on one case in which a husband murdered his wife based on a dream that she had betrayed him. In Turkey, a young woman's throat was slit in the town square because a love ballad had been dedicated to her over the radio."


"Women accused by family members of bringing dishonor to their families are rarely given the opportunity to prove their innocence. In many countries where the practice is condoned or at least ignored, there are few shelters and very little legal protection."

"In Jordan, if a woman is afraid that her family wants to kill her, she can check herself into the local prison, but she can't check herself out, and the only person who can get her out is a male relative, who is frequently the person who poses the threat," said Brown.

Satisfied?

What if YOU were the target of this hate literature? Would you still support hate literature? And yes you "support" hate literature by stating that it should be legal?

Being a jew, I am the target of many examples of "hate literature" by the Muslim World. Go check out IDF's links eariler in the thread if you don't believe me.

However much I dislike these messages being conveyed, I realize there is something called freedom of speech. I don't care if some newspaper a few thousand miles away says "God took a crap one day and Jews are the little flecks of corn in it." If they want to say it, let them. I just won't be buying that newspaper or reccomending it to a friend. I won't however riot/burn stuff down/kill the people that said or support it.

Don't make this a black and white issue. Just because you stand for free speech does not mean you support hateful use of it. I don't support "hate literature", but I won't outlaw it either. That just leads down a road to tyranny that I don't want to follow.

What if YOU were the target of this hate literature? Would you still support hate literature?
Every single group on the planet has been the target of hate literature of some sort. As a white, Texan, American male, I'm sure there are plenty of works out there in the world that insult me just for being me. I honestly don't care. I know they're wrong about me (unless they're right). Would you serriously be bothered? I'm sure there's anti-Canadian stuff out there somewhere, eh?
You need to get thicker skin. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned. Conservatives ban things that they don't like, that they feel hurt the common good. Do you really want to be like them?
And yes you "support" hate literature by stating that it should be legal?
All right.

Could you please provide credible links to these above stories, other than the ones about burning the embassies?

For what its worth, I can attest to the Nigerian and the Pakistani stories.

Honor killings are an ugly reality. It is institutionalised..in the sense that the state does nothing to prevent (except trying to hide it from foreign media...like the Muktharan Mai case).

canuck,

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engASA330181999

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330061999?open&of=ENG-PAK
Amnesty International is appalled that over a week after a woman seeking divorce was shot dead in her lawyer's office, none of the accused has been arrested. Instead, the lawyers who were defending the victim and other women have been left fearing for their lives.

Members of the Peshawar Chamber of Commerce, of which the victim's father is chairman, and local ulema (Islamic scholars), have publicly stated that the honour killing was in accordance with religious and tribal traditions. They have accused human rights lawyers Asma Jahangir and her sister Hina Jilani, in whose offices the murder took place, of "misguiding women". Declaring them kafirs (non-believers), local ulema have issued a fatwa (religious edict) calling on believers to kill the two women

Also, follow the case of Muktharan Mai (who, IIRC, is now in Canada)

So their civilization has some bloody customs. So what? Every civilization has.
Anyone who support the death penalty is uncivilized now?

The stories you showed me showed that there was some sort of trial, that a guilty party has been found and that someone handed a punishment. Sure, the punishment is abhorent to us in our culture but it is not for them. Do I have to explain how values and morals have changed throughout history? They do act in a civilized manner, just a different one that we are accustomed to.

Calling them uncivilized is like calling them animals or sub-human. It's patently false and I won't stand for it. You can link any kind of story you like and denounce human-rights abuse all you want and I'll be right along with you protesting. But the minute you denigrate them and try to show them as something other than a human being, I'll be criticizing your callous disregard of facts as partisan hackery to be met with opposition. You are not helping the problem, you are counfounding it. Much as Mr. Levant is doing himself.

Every single group on the planet has been the target of hate literature of some sort.
That makes hate literature legitimate?

As a white, Texan, American male, I'm sure there are plenty of works out there in the world that insult me just for being me.
However, the likelihood of YOU personally being targeted by hate literature are slim and none?

I honestly don't care. I know they're wrong about me (unless they're right). Would you serriously be bothered? I'm sure there's anti-Canadian stuff out there somewhere, eh?
Of course I care, and that is part and parcel as to why I started this thread. There is too much hate in this world and the results are obvious? It starts as hate mail, graffiti, etc., and ends up in violence, discrimination, death and destruction. I cannot support such hatred.

The following is just a sampling from Canada and I am sure that it varies greatly from country to country.

TABLE 4 Hate Activity by Region (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/1995/tr95-4a.pdf)

You need to get thicker skin. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned. Conservatives ban things that they don't like, that they feel hurt the common good. Do you really want to be like them?
IF banning things that are dangerous and deadly to my fellow human beings makes me a Conservative in your eyes, then I guess I am a Conservative. However, I do believe that my liberal leanings allow me to confront Conservative ideolgy that is also deadly and dangerous to my fellow human beings.

That makes hate literature legitimate?


However, the likelihood of YOU personally being targeted by hate literature are slim and none?


Of course I care, and that is part and parcel as to why I started this thread. There is too much hate in this world and the results are obvious? It starts as hate mail, graffiti, etc., and ends up in violence, discrimination, death and destruction. I cannot support such hatred.

The following is just a sampling from Canada and I am sure that it varies greatly from country to country.

TABLE 4 Hate Activity by Region (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/1995/tr95-4a.pdf)


IF banning things that are dangerous and deadly to my fellow human beings makes me a Conservative in your eyes, then I guess I am a Conservative. However, I do believe that my liberal leanings allow me to confront Conservative ideolgy that is also deadly and dangerous to my fellow human beings.

Again, restricting speech of any kind only follows a slippery slope of tyranny. We didn't put freedom of speech in the Constitution just to arbitraily restrict it when one finds it offensive.

The only reason this is "deadly and dangerous" is because a group of fanatical Islamic people can't take a blow to their religion. These fanatics are acting like 4 year olds. "Waaah someone insulted me, lets throw a temper tantrum and show them!" Everyone gets made fun of, grow up. There will always be insults in this world, outlawed or not. These people just need to learn to deal with it like civilized people.

You don't see Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Jehovas, Scientologists, Wiccans, or Pagans throwing a hissy fit over cartoons. This is what it comes down to. If anyone starts burning stuff down or killing people over a cartoon, sorry, but the ones who did it have to go.

Again, restricting speech of any kind only follows a slippery slope of tyranny. We didn't put freedom of speech in the Constitution just to arbitraily restrict it when one finds it offensive.

The only reason this is "deadly and dangerous" is because a group of fanatical Islamic people can't take a blow to their religion. These fanatics are acting like 4 year olds. "Waaah someone insulted me, lets throw a temper tantrum and show them!" Everyone gets made fun of, grow up. There will always be insults in this world, outlawed or not. These people just need to learn to deal with it like civilized people.

You don't see Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Jehovas, Scientologists, Wiccans, or Pagans throwing a hissy fit over cartoons. This is what it comes down to. If anyone starts burning stuff down or killing people over a cartoon, sorry, but the ones who did it have to go.
I don't see the problem to restricting freedom of expression to stop insisting hatred. After all, we already limit the freedom of speech for such things as libel, pronography, yelling fire in a crowded cinema just to name a few.

Hate writing incite racial hatred, vandalism and other crimes that would not have happened if the criminal hadn't been pushed toward it by propaganda. I see it as being accessory to the crime. The guy burned an embassy because he read that "them westerner don't respect us. They should be killed."

As such, I am see your slippery slope argument as a fallacy.

Calling them uncivilized is like calling them animals or sub-human. It's patently false and I won't stand for it. You can link any kind of story you like and denounce human-rights abuse all you want and I'll be right along with you protesting. But the minute you denigrate them and try to show them as something other than a human being, I'll be criticizing your callous disregard of facts as partisan hackery to be met with opposition. You are not helping the problem, you are counfounding it. Much as Mr. Levant is doing himself.

How is it partisan? Just how? There are people from all different countries that consider this barbaric and uncivilized - which for your edification does not mean, non human - so where is the partisan link? Eh? Eh?

I also demand you see the irony of your statement.

So their civilization has some bloody customs. So what? Every civilization has.
Anyone who support the death penalty is uncivilized now?

The stories you showed me showed that there was some sort of trial, that a guilty party has been found and that someone handed a punishment. Sure, the punishment is abhorent to us in our culture but it is not for them. Do I have to explain how values and morals have changed throughout history? They do act in a civilized manner, just a different one that we are accustomed to.

Calling them uncivilized is like calling them animals or sub-human. It's patently false and I won't stand for it. You can link any kind of story you like and denounce human-rights abuse all you want and I'll be right along with you protesting. But the minute you denigrate them and try to show them as something other than a human being, I'll be criticizing your callous disregard of facts as partisan hackery to be met with opposition. You are not helping the problem, you are counfounding it. Much as Mr. Levant is doing himself.

Sorry, but there is NO comparison to honor killings and the death penalty. Check out my quote from eariler. Provided by National Geographic by the way.

"Women are considered the property of the males in their family irrespective of their class, ethnic, or religious group. The owner of the property has the right to decide its fate. The concept of ownership has turned women into a commodity which can be exchanged, bought and sold."

"Honor killings are perpetrated for a wide range of offenses. Marital infidelity, pre-marital sex, flirting, or even failing to serve a meal on time can all be perceived as impugning the family honor."

"Amnesty International has reported on one case in which a husband murdered his wife based on a dream that she had betrayed him. In Turkey, a young woman's throat was slit in the town square because a love ballad had been dedicated to her over the radio."


"Women accused by family members of bringing dishonor to their families are rarely given the opportunity to prove their innocence. In many countries where the practice is condoned or at least ignored, there are few shelters and very little legal protection."

"In Jordan, if a woman is afraid that her family wants to kill her, she can check herself into the local prison, but she can't check herself out, and the only person who can get her out is a male relative, who is frequently the person who poses the threat," said Brown.


So, slitting a woman's throat in town square for having a love ballad dedicated to her = the death penalty? Excuse me while I puke. The death penalty is reserved for the most dangerous of criminals, not women who flirt or can't serve a meal on time. By the way, many times honor killings don't go punished or are overlooked. The countries that practice this are uncivilized, or are about as civilized as the Aztecs.

How is it partisan? Just how? There are people from all different countries that consider this barbaric and uncivilized - which for your edification does not mean, non human - so where is the partisan link? Eh? Eh?

I also demand you see the irony of your statement.
us Vs them: therefore partisan.

But I do see the sweet irony... ;)

I don't see the problem to restricting freedom of expression to stop insisting hatred. After all, we already limit the freedom of speech for such things as libel, pronography, yelling fire in a crowded cinema just to name a few.

Hate writing incite racial hatred, vandalism and other crimes that would not have happened if the criminal hadn't been pushed toward it by propaganda. I see it as being accessory to the crime. The guy burned an embassy because he read that "them westerner don't respect us. They should be killed."

As such, I am see your slippery slope argument as a fallacy.
I entirely agree. Hate crimes are a result of hate literature, faulty information and commentary meant to incite criminal behaviour.

Sorry, but there is NO comparison to honor killings and the death penalty. Check out my quote from eariler. Provided by National Geographic by the way.



So, slitting a woman's throat in town square for having a love ballad dedicated to her = the death penalty? Excuse me while I puke. The death penalty is reserved for the most dangerous of criminals, not women who flirt or can't serve a meal on time. By the way, many times honor killings don't go punished or are overlooked. The countries that practice this are uncivilized, or are about as civilized as the Aztecs.
therefore civilized as per the definition.

having a system of punishment for a transgression going so far as killing the offender is nothing new. See japan for honor killing (falling on his sword) and how it was considered acceptable.

the fact that there is a death penalty for some crimes puts you on equal footing as far as human rights are concerned. So what if their threshold for the death penalty is lower. Both are still a death penalty for some crimes and are both an affront to human rights. Sure, they have more of it. That was never in contention. Calling them uncivilized because they do honor killing would permit me to call US citizens uncivilized because the US still have the death penalty.

I don't see the problem to restricting freedom of expression to stop insisting hatred. After all, we already limit the freedom of speech for such things as libel, pronography, yelling fire in a crowded cinema just to name a few.

Hate writing incite racial hatred, vandalism and other crimes that would not have happened if the criminal hadn't been pushed toward it by propaganda. I see it as being accessory to the crime. The guy burned an embassy because he read that "them westerner don't respect us. They should be killed."

As such, I am see your slippery slope argument as a fallacy.

So you're saying the people who wrote cartoons is directly responsible for the burning down of an embassy? So if I go out and kill you because I regard what you're saying as hate speech, you're partly to blame? Yeah, those newspapers really put a gun to that mob's head and said, "Riot and burn, or we'll kill you."

So you're for outlawing hate speech right? What if one finds Ann Coulter or Michael Moore hateful? Should they be silenced? According to you, yes. Hell, what if someone finds Curious George which promotes imperialism and animal abuse to be hateful? Stop printing that too? See where I'm going here?

Eventually no one will be able to say anything for fear of being punished for hate speech. By the way, outlawing the problem doesn't make it go away. Look at Prohibition and Marijuana. Just puts people in our overfilled jails or fines them exorbinate amounts for saying something another doesn't agree with. As such, I see your outlawing hate speech as a fallacy.

Being a jew, I am the target of many examples of "hate literature" by the Muslim World. Go check out IDF's links eariler in the thread if you don't believe me.
Being a Jew, obviously your people have been targeted, but have YOU been personally targeted? Have any crimes been comitted against YOU personally due to hate literature?

BTW, it is not just Muslims who target Jews with hate literature, death and destruction. Hitler comes to mind.

However much I dislike these messages being conveyed, I realize there is something called freedom of speech. I don't care if some newspaper a few thousand miles away says "God took a crap one day and Jews are the little flecks of corn in it." If they want to say it, let them. I just won't be buying that newspaper or reccomending it to a friend. I won't however riot/burn stuff down/kill the people that said or support it.
Hitler certainly had freedom of speech and being in a position of power, was able to effect the death of over 6 Million Jews. You can't see a problem with this?

Don't make this a black and white issue. Just because you stand for free speech does not mean you support hateful use of it. I don't support "hate literature", but I won't outlaw it either. That just leads down a road to tyranny that I don't want to follow.
You do support "hate literature" by suggesting that it is part of "freedom of speech". It is black and white. Free speech that calls for the death and destruction of a segment of the human race is not really free at all. There is a cost to pay and German and Jews found that out during WW 2.

I guess that means I would be justified in burning down the offices of HCI, MMM, and VPC for comparing gun owners to criminals and being accused of supporting terrorism.

I consider that hate speech.

therefore civilized as per the definition.

having a system of punishment for a transgression going so far as killing the offender is nothing new. See japan for honor killing (falling on his sword) and how it was considered acceptable.

the fact that there is a death penalty for some crimes puts you on equal footing as far as human rights are concerned. So what if their threshold for the death penalty is lower. Both are still a death penalty for some crimes and are both an affront to human rights. Sure, they have more of it. That was never in contention. Calling them uncivilized because they do honor killing would permit me to call US citizens uncivilized because the US still have the death penalty.

Not serving a meal on time is a crime? Having someone else flirt with you is a crime? Did you commit a crime when your husband dreamt about your betrayal? We're on equal human rights footing with people that regard women as property that can be killed at her husband's leisure? Sorry, but I think we're just a smidge more civilized than that. We don't buy or sell women, don't kill them because our "honor" is at stake, and don't riot/kill/burn over cartoons.

Being a Jew, obviously your people have been targeted, but have YOU been personally targeted? Have any crimes been comitted against YOU personally due to hate literature?

BTW, it is not just Muslims who target Jews with hate literature, death and destruction. Hitler comes to mind.


Hitler certainly had freedom of speech and being in a position of power, was able to effect the death of over 6 Million Jews. You can't see a problem with this?


You do support "hate literature" by suggesting that it is part of "freedom of speech". It is black and white. Free speech that calls for the death and destruction of a segment of the human race is not really free at all. There is a cost to pay and German and Jews found that out during WW 2.


And CH just Godwinned this thread by comparing free speech to Hilter.

Not serving a meal on time is a crime? Having someone else flirt with you is a crime? Did you commit a crime when your husband dreamt about your betrayal? We're on equal human rights footing with people that regard women as property that can be killed at her husband's leisure? Sorry, but I think we're just a smidge more civilized than that. We don't buy or sell women, don't kill them because our "honor" is at stake, and don't riot/kill/burn over cartoons.
So because they don't have the same standard and set of laws as us they are uncivilized? Is that what you are saying?

And CH just Godwinned this thread by comparing free speech to Hilter.
How astute, this is afterall a topic about Jews, and Muslims. :eek:

So because they don't have the same standard and set of laws as us they are uncivilized? Is that what you are saying?

In these kinds of cases, yes.

Setting a standard for women to keep covered: Not necessarily bad

Killing them if they don't do it: Bad

Can you really not see the difference?

How astute, this is afterall a topic about Jews, and Muslims. :eek:

And there are historical links between the ME muslim community and the Nazis.

How astute, this is afterall a topic about Jews, and Muslims. :eek:

Fine I'll turn your question around. Have any of the Muslims that have been burning, rioting, etc "been personally targeted? Have any crimes been comitted against them personally due to hate literature?

If you say the cartoons were directed at them personally, then all the hate liturature that is published by Gov't run ME papers affect the Jews on a personal level as well.

Being a Jew, obviously your people have been targeted, but have YOU been personally targeted? Have any crimes been comitted against YOU personally due to hate literature?

Were the individuals that burned down embassies/rioted/killed over a dozen targeted specifically? No. It is the exact same thing as a Syrian newspaper printing cartoons that depict Jews as blood-sucking devils, then a mob of Jews goes and does the aforementioned activities. Except we don't.

BTW, it is not just Muslims who target Jews with hate literature, death and destruction. Hitler comes to mind.

I'm fully aware of that. Recently, however, Muslims have been the vast majority of people to target us with their hate literature. Thus that's what I'm adressing, the more pertinent issues to us today.

Hitler certainly had freedom of speech and being in a position of power, was able to effect the death of over 6 Million Jews. You can't see a problem with this?

I fail to see how an authoritarian ruler would allow freedom of speech. Sure, he had the freedom to say what he wanted, but what about the people? "Political dissidents" were sent to concentration camps too.

Having control over the army helps too...

You do support "hate literature" by suggesting that it is part of "freedom of speech". It is black and white. Free speech that calls for the death and destruction of a segment of the human race is not really free at all. There is a cost to pay and German and Jews found that out during WW 2.

I didn't see the Danish newspapers' cartoons advertising any of that. from what I recall there was something about running out of virgins and guy with a bomb in his turban. I do however see that often in Muslim newspapers. No, it wasn't hate speech that killed 6 million jews. It was a dictator that told his officers to issue a final solution against the "Jewish problem"

So because they don't have the same standard and set of laws as us they are uncivilized? Is that what you are saying?

I don't think that woman was breaking any law when her husband dreamed that she'd betray him. I think that the 18 year old girl that was gang raped in Pakistan because her brother was walking unchaperoned with a girl of a different class, didn't break the law either.

I don't think that woman was breaking any law when her husband dreamed that she'd betray him. I think that the 18 year old girl that was gang raped in Pakistan because her brother was walking unchaperoned with a girl of a different class, broke the law either.


And even if it were against the law, these actions are the definition of "barbaric" and therefore uncivilized.

Could you please provide credible links to these above stories, other than the ones about burning the embassies?
No problem. You must not read the news much. The fact that you don't believe these things happen or doubt these stories happen in the Muslim world would lead one to believe you need to get more news. I'll find the rest, but here's the one about the gang rape. BTW - I actually got the story wrong. It was much worse. The girl that was raped actually didn't do anything. It was for punishment because her brother was seen walking with a girl he wasn't supposed to be walking with.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/08/04/pakistan.justice/

I'll find the rest.

Oh, and please don't misunderstand. Thes people are on trial for it only because of international outrage and because the place was teaming with reporters from western countries covering the war in Afghanistan. Had those people not been there these people would not have gone on trial. Also, read the whole story. It gives you a few other examples of how civilized the Muslim world is such as teh guy who gave away his five-year-old daughter to some dude so he could get out of prison. ;)

Nigerian woman sentenced to be stoned to death:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2116540.stm

here's another one covering the Nigerian woman from a Muslim site. They were CHEERING as the court UPHELD her stoning sentence for adultry. Let's see if I can find some more evidence of how civilized the Muslim world is. I'll be back...

Let me know when you've seen enough and I'll stop...

In these kinds of cases, yes.

Setting a standard for women to keep covered: Not necessarily bad

Killing them if they don't do it: Bad

Can you really not see the difference?
I can certainly see the difference. But that is not the point. The point is that IDF called the whole of Middle Eastern Muslim uncivilized based on these acts which, while seen as barbaric from our point of view, were seen as perfectly normal in many civilizations.

One act of barbarism (or twenty) does not make an entire culture uncivilized.

I don't think that woman was breaking any law when her husband dreamed that she'd betray him. I think that the 18 year old girl that was gang raped in Pakistan because her brother was walking unchaperoned with a girl of a different class, didn't break the law either.
I don't know the extent of their law so she might have. But that is, again, not the point. Just because some customs are seen as "barbaric" from our point of view does not make them uncivilized. Otherwise, I can point at Guantanamo Bay and call every US citizen uncivilized.

One act does not eradicate thousands of years of culture.

There's one simple way to check if they are civilized: can they act together and codify a set of behaviour to follow? If yes, then they are a civilization.

I can certainly see the difference. But that is not the point. The point is that IDF called the whole of Middle Eastern Muslim uncivilized based on these acts which, while seen as barbaric from our point of view, were seen as perfectly normal in many civilizations.

One act of barbarism (or twenty) does not make an entire culture uncivilized.

So the barbaric acts are seen as "perfectly normal" by the civilization but that doesn't make the culture uncivilized?

rathr than just single out Syria for the honor killing thing, here's an article about honor killings in general from all over the Muslim world. It does specifically mention Syria...
http://www.yobserver.com/cgi-bin/yobserver/exec/view.cgi/22/9304

And I forgot to post this link in my last post. Here's teh story of how they were cheering:

http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=661_0_26_0_C25

I don't know the extent of their law so she might have. But that is, again, not the point. Just because some customs are seen as "barbaric" from our point of view does not make them uncivilized. Otherwise, I can point at Guantanamo Bay and call every US citizen uncivilized.

One act does not eradicate thousands of years of culture.

There's one simple way to check if they are civilized: can they act together and codify a set of behaviour to follow? If yes, then they are a civilization.

Your analogy is false as the alledged occurences at Gitmo are not recognized by Western culture as civilized and are not even on the same levels as sanctioned gang rapes and murders.

A codified set of behavior that is barbaric and therefore the civilization that developed it is barbaric or "uncivilized".

I can certainly see the difference. But that is not the point. The point is that IDF called the whole of Middle Eastern Muslim uncivilized based on these acts which, while seen as barbaric from our point of view, were seen as perfectly normal in many civilizations.

One act of barbarism (or twenty) does not make an entire culture uncivilized.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The whole point here is not just that these acts occur in the Muslim world, it is that these kinds of act are the standard for justice at the community level. They reflect the VALUES of the culture.

Also, it is a completely hypocritical position to hold, anayway. To say that it's okay for them to do that because it's their culture completely contradicts your stance on our own. If they can have honor rapes and honor killings, then we can have freedom of the press. You say these practices are ingrained in their culture. Fine. Freedom of expression is ingrained in ours.

So the barbaric acts are seen as "perfectly normal" by the civilization but that doesn't make the culture uncivilized?
this goes back to the definition of civilization... so, yeah.

I don't know the extent of their law so she might have. But that is, again, not the point. Just because some customs are seen as "barbaric" from our point of view does not make them uncivilized. Otherwise, I can point at Guantanamo Bay and call every US citizen uncivilized.

One act does not eradicate thousands of years of culture.

There's one simple way to check if they are civilized: can they act together and codify a set of behaviour to follow? If yes, then they are a civilization.
Again with the definition argument. Because we can agree they have a civilization does not mean they are civilized in the sense of the word anybody not being deliberately obtuse knows IDF, myself and Kecibukia are using. By acting like the word civilized means that they have got a civilization going and not that they engage in acts that are seen as barbaric in the rest of the civilized world frees you from having to deal with the real argument at hand.

this goes back to the definition of civilization... so, yeah.

Fine.


Definition of Barbaric:

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians.
2. Marked by crudeness or lack of restraint in taste, style, or manner.


Like the examples cited which you have recognized as a cultural norm.

Synonyms:

barbarian, savage, uncivilized, uncivilised, wild


So a "civilisation" can be "uncivilised" by definition.

What if YOU were the target of this hate literature? Would you still support hate literature? And yes you "support" hate literature by stating that it should be legal?
That's just stupid. Every group is the target of hate literature. None of them react this way. They protest, boycott and then ask people to take their kids to the museum of tolerance.

You see them as uncivilized with their customs.

They see you as uncivilized with your lack of faith.

Who is right, who is wrong? It all depends on perspective. As such, I stand by my claim that those who see them as uncivilized bring nothing but hate and rethoric to the debate and are not worth arguing with.

Why would you support hate literature?
This is also stupid and dangerous. because you think something should be legal does not mean you support it.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm quoting myself here because it's supid to argue definitions. This is the real crux of the debate. I've no doubt that you will ignore it and argue about what "civilized" means because you're hopelessly lost in teh real question.

*sighs*

IDF did not say they weren't a civilization. He said they werent' civilized. Again, I think the axamples he gave and the ones I gav shows that they may be a civilization but they are not civilized in the sense of the word he meant. Any reasonable person who read what he wrote knows exactly what he meant. To try to obfuscate it only looks like a desperate attempt to avoid the real debate here which is, of course, about the fundamental difference between Muslim and Western culture and how much of an allowance should Western culture make for Muslim sensabilities regarding the freedoms we hold dear. I hold that absolutely no allowance at all should be made for their sensabilities at all. If they don't like to be offended then they shouldn't read our newspapers. I don't think one single law should in anyway be changed and no government should in anyway abridge the freedom of the press in order to prevent Muslims from being offended. Freedom of the press is too important to our way of life. If Muslims want to demonstrate peacfully against a bunch of cartoons, fine. If they want to kill eachother in Pakistan because fo some cartoons that were published in Denmark, again, fine. But I think if they ask for us to censor our newspapers we should tell them to get bent.

You see them as uncivilized with their customs.

They see you as uncivilized with your lack of faith.

Who is right, who is wrong? It all depends on perspective. As such, I stand by my claim that those who see them as uncivilized bring nothing but hate and rethoric to the debate and are not worth arguing with.

When the customs are murdering and raping due to dreams or walking w/ someone... Once again yes.

Considering me "uncivilized" for a "lack of faith" is fine although intolerant (another mark of "civilized" behavior BTW) , wanting to kill me for it = barbaric.

I could just turn around and say you support subsidized misogyny and defined barbaric practices.

I don't know the extent of their law so she might have.

Search and read on Shariat laws, Hudood ordinances, Blasphemy laws.

Hudood ordinances are particularly nasty. By that law, a raped girl has to provide 4 pious muslim males (non-muslims are not eligible to be a witness) who had witnessed the actual act of penetration, to prove her rape. If she is unable to provide the requisite four witnesses, SHE will be accused of zina (fornication outside lawful wedlock) and SHE will be punished for that.

http://www.hrw.org/about/projects/womrep/General-90.htm

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/svaw_hudoo

Again, these are not random happenings. These go hand in hand with the honor killings.

Quite recently a man murdered four of his own daughter (by slitting their throats) because...get this..his eldest daughter loved and married someone and sullied his honor. Why did he kill the rest of his daughters? To prevent them from dishonoring him like the eldest. I am not kidding.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10596704/from/RL.1/

Just because some customs are seen as "barbaric" from our point of view does not make them uncivilized. Otherwise, I can point at Guantanamo Bay and call every US citizen uncivilized.

Wrong comparision. Gitmo is for outsiders. US system does not treat their citizens in that manner.

OTOH, Hudood ordnances are meant for their own citizens. I am less judgemental on how a society treats others (especially those seen as enemies) than how it treats members of the society itself.

You see them as uncivilized with their customs.

They see you as uncivilized with your lack of faith.

Who is right, who is wrong? It all depends on perspective. As such, I stand by my claim that those who see them as uncivilized bring nothing but hate and rethoric to the debate and are not worth arguing with.
I agree with you and that is how polarized topics such as these can get.

That is why I asked at the beginning of the thread to leave the hate and anger at the door, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

Assuming that Muslims are uncivilized/barbarians (which I don't agree), it is amazing to watch the debate of the defenders of the "civilzed" world. These stalwarts of the "civilized" world have witnessed a violent reaction by these "uncivilized" Muslims, to cartoons??? depicting their Prohet Muhammad. The violence has resulted in death and destruction.

The "civilized" world reacts with horror and indignation and their solution to the problem is to post more and more cartoons?? to teach the "uncivilized" world a lesson. And the "civilized" world is shocked when the "uncivilized" world reacts exactly the same way they did the first time.

Did the "civilized" cartoonist who drew these pictures really think that the Muslims would get a chuckle out of them? Did the "civilized" publisher who re-published these cartoons?? really think that the Muslims would somehow stop the violence if the cartoons were published ad infinitum?

Heck, even my children learned at an early age not to touch the hot element twice.

Search and read on Shariat laws, Hudood ordinances, Blasphemy laws.

Hudood ordinances are particularly nasty. By that law, a raped girl has to provide 4 pious muslim males (non-muslims are not eligible to be a witness) who had witnessed the actual act of penetration, to prove her rape. If she is unable to provide the requisite four witnesses, SHE will be accused of zina (fornication outside lawful wedlock) and SHE will be punished for that.

http://www.hrw.org/about/projects/womrep/General-90.htm

http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aproweb.nsf/pages/svaw_hudoo

Again, these are not random happenings. These go hand in hand with the honor killings.

Quite recently a man murdered four of his own daughter (by slitting their throats) because...get this..his eldest daughter loved and married someone and sullied his honor. Why did he kill the rest of his daughters? To prevent them from dishonoring him like the eldest. I am not kidding.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10596704/from/RL.1/



Wrong comparision. Gitmo is for outsiders. US system does not treat their citizens in that manner.

OTOH, Hudood ordnances are meant for their own citizens. I am less judgemental on how a society treats others (especially those seen as enemies) than how it treats members of the society itself.
Give it up. They lost the real argument a long time ago. They only want to argue about what the word "civilized" means now. They're finding it hard to support raping and killing women and children for honor so they bailed on that a while ago.

Give it up. They lost the real argument a long time ago. They only want to argue about what the word "civilized" means now. They're finding it hard to support raping and killing women and children for honor so they bailed on that a while ago.
since that was never my intent to defend these acts, I fail to see how I "lost" the argument.

But you can continue to act all high and mighty and condescending all you like, for all the good you did for your side of the "real argument" :rolleyes:

I agree with you and that is how polarized topics such as these can get.

That is why I asked at the beginning of the thread to leave the hate and anger at the door, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

Assuming that Muslims are uncivilized/barbarians (which I don't agree), it is amazing to watch the debate of the defenders of the "civilzed" world. These stalwarts of the "civilized" world have witnessed a violent reaction by these "uncivilized" Muslims, to cartoons??? depicting their Prohet Muhammad. The violence has resulted in death and destruction.

The "civilized" world reacts with horror and indignation and their solution to the problem is to post more and more cartoons?? to teach the "uncivilized" world a lesson. And the "civilized" world is shocked when the "uncivilized" world reacts exactly the same way they did the first time.

Did the "civilized" cartoonist who drew these pictures really think that the Muslims would get a chuckle out of them? Did the "civilized" publisher who re-published these cartoons?? really think that the Muslims would somehow stop the violence if the cartoons were published ad infinitum?

Heck, even my children learned at an early age not to touch the hot element twice.
That's just another dodge. No one is even defending the cartoons themselves, though I would. I think they're absolutley legitimate representations of the modern political/cultural landscape. But what we're defending is freedom of the press. I see things in the paper, actually, I see people write things on this site that offend me everyday. People insult my country, my beliefs... I wouldnt have it any other way. I believe in freedom of expression very dearly and I am worried when people start to espouse any kind of censorship at all. Especially when it involves threats.

You say that honor killings and rapes are fine in the Muslim world because that's their culture. You seem to think its okay to gang rape a little girl because her brother walked down the street with a girl he shouldn't have any contact with. Fine. If that's the level of cultural relativism you're willing to support that's your right. But inour culture we believe in freedom of expression as ardently as Muslims believe its okay to light your wife on fire if you think she may have cheated. If they can do that, we can publish cartoons without haveing to cave into threats. People like you would give away the freedoms we enjoy just because someone threatens you. I'm not willing to do that. I am willing to fight to maintain those freedoms.

since that was never my intent to defend these acts, I fail to see how I "lost" the argument.

But you cantinue to act all high and mighty and condescending all you like, for all the good you did for your side of the "real argument" :rolleyes:
That's a perfect example. The only post of mine that you are willing to respond to is the one about definitions. You have yet to tackle anything other than that in this whole thread.

Canuck,

Simple question. Is it OK for a society to have laws like hudood ordinances, because it is their culture ?

That's a perfect example. The only post of mine that you are willing to respond to is the one about definitions. You have yet to tackle anything other than that in this whole thread.
what I choose to argue about is of my concern but thank you for your diligence about my posting habits.

I refer you to post 73 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10430110&postcount=73)as a proof that you are mistaken.

what I choose to argue about is of my concern but thank you for your diligence about my posting habits.

I refer you to post 73 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10430110&postcount=73)as a proof that you are mistaken.
Oh, my mistake. You argue about the definition of "civilized" and why you say someone's Canadian. Still haven't touched the central argument behind the entire controversy which, of course, is about the clash between cultures with regard to freedom of expression and what allowances, if any, we should make to the Muslim world when deciding what we should or shouldn't print in our own publications. Simple question.

You've already established that you have no problem with gang raping children because of something their brother did or killing a woman because she has sex out of wedlock because, according to you, that's their culture. Well, freedom of expression is as important to us as stoning women to death is to them so, if they can kill their sisters for honor whycan't we publish cartoons?

(I did not use the word civilized here.) ;)

Canuck,

Simple question. Is it OK for a society to have laws like hudood ordinances, because it is their culture ?Their Land, Theirs Law.

How would you like me to "comment" on Indian Posters, Indian ways, or Indian Laws?

You know what? Imma back off the confrontation and just ask you what you think we should do with regards to freedom of expression in the West as a result of Muslim outrage over these cartoons. What should we do? Also, I'd like to know if you have any criticism at all about the Muslim reaction. Do you think its okay to burn buildings and kill people over this? If that's what's okay to do in their culture, do you think its okay to transport that attitude to the west if they come here?

Their Land, Theirs Law.

How would you like me to "comment" on Indian Posters, Indian ways, or Indian Laws?

Go ahead. Facts are facts. You will not find me saying "Oh it's our culture" on the ills of Indian society.

Go ahead. Facts are facts. You will not find me saying "Oh it's our culture" on the ills of Indian society.
Oh, c'mon! You expect me to believe that if he comments on your culture you're not going to kill anyone or burn down any buildings or threaten to behead him? That's no fun. :(

Oh, my mistake. You argue about the definition of "civilized" and why you say someone's Canadian. Still haven't touched the central argument behind the entire controversy which, of course, is about the clash between cultures with regard to freedom of expression and what allowances, if any, we should make to the Muslim world when deciding what we should or shouldn't print in our own publications. Simple question.
Hey, you're the one who falsely claimed I only posted to argue about definition. It's not my fault if you were wrong.

And I am truly moved about your concern on what I decide to respond to. I mean, surely you are the final authority on what a discussion is about and what has to be answered to post or not. I thank you for your concern but I will use my jolt-given right to free speach and answer what I damn well please. Feel free to ignore me all you want if I don't answer your concerns.

You've already established that you have no problem with gang raping children because of something their brother did or killing a woman because she has sex out of wedlock because, according to you, that's their culture. Well, freedom of expression is as important to us as stoning women to death is to them so, if they can kill their sisters for honor whycan't we publish cartoons?

(I did not use the word civilized here.) ;)
Well, someone is putting words in my mouth there, for sure. I would kindly ask you to refrain from painting me as for something unless I specifically say so, thank you very much.

Until you quote me for being for gang raping children, stoning women or any other act of cruelty, I say put up or shut up.

As such, I already said that freedom of expression is important but can be curtailed in order to have a more stable and better society in yet another post you seem to have missed.

It really is quite enlightening to hear the case for "cultural and religious respect" preached to me by groups and nations that repeatedly refuse to show it towards others. Anti-semitism is rife throughout the Arab world, women are treated as second class citizens, presses throughout the Middle East repeatedly print insidious slander about "infidels", western flag burning is rife (incidentally I feel the burning of a nations flag is just as offensive as any cartoon) and finally lets point out the fact that the recently elected Hamas plans on introducing something that equates to "an unbeliever tax". Where is the Muslim anger regarding this? Where is their priggish defence of 'the right not to be offended' when it is Muslims who are causing the offence?

If I were a Muslim, I would be more offended by footage of Iraqi terrorists beheading their victims or the frenzy of bomb attacks throughout the Middle East all committed in the name of Allah than I would be about a silly cartoon. If Muslims are concerned that Islam is being accused of barbarism and ignorance then perhaps they ought not overreacting in a manner that is barbaric and ignorant. If Muslims are concerned that Islam is being cast as a violent religion then perhaps they ought not respond to the depictions with violence and threats of violence.

Virtually every world religion has been mocked or caricatured at some point or another, and yes, occasionally, the response oversteps the boundaries of what is acceptable but in this instance the extremity and popularity of the reaction is so utterly beyond comparison that to even talk about the Christian response to the Jerry Springer opera in the same sentence is utterly absurd.

The fact that Islamic anger towards the cartoon is still even the centre of this story is something that I find incredulous, what about British anger toward the fact that 5-700 Muslims were permitted to march around London praising the fantastic four and threatening repeats of July the 7th, what about Danish anger that its embassy has been burned down and had fatwahs issues against some of its citizens, what about the outrage of western society in general that the sacrosanct value of freedom or speech is under attack.

Yet at the same time I read, see and hear things everyday that I find offensive – but that’s tough shit, being offended from time to time is the price of living in a free society and blasphemy is the price of living in a secular one. Whether or not the basis of my offence is racial, cultural or religious is irrelevant, as is whether or not the offence is widespread. And to be honest, I think the cartoons were stupid and without purpose, yet what they have come to symbolise is not – that no matter how ignorant and offensive what a person says is, they damn well have the right to say it.

I already said that freedom of expression is important but can be curtailed in order to have a more stable and better society in yet another post you seem to have missed.
Here we go. Some meat. So who do you propose should do the curtailing? What laws do you think should be passed, if any? What kind of punishment do you think people who disobey any laws should receive? How do you reconcile that with the fact that offensive speech against every other group has been protected with your suggestion that we curtail it with regards to Muslims? White pride groups have been allowed to publish hate literature. Anarchists have been allowed to publish books advocating the overthrow of the US, and just about every other Western government. Black power groups have been allowed to publish books likening white people to Satan. Protestors have been allowed to follow President Bush around with sign saying extremely vile things about him, most of which I happen to agree with.

Should people still be able to post offensive images about Christianity like the Piss Christ the religious right used to attack the NEA a decade ago or do we just curtail speech that may be offensive to Muslims? What level of offense do you think justifies any criminal prosecution of a publisher for offending Muslims or everyone else if you think everybody should be protected against being offended by free expression?

It really is quite enlightening to hear the case for "cultural and religious respect" preached to me by groups and nations that repeatedly refuse to show it towards others. Anti-semitism is rife throughout the Arab world, women are treated as second class citizens, presses throughout the Middle East repeatedly print insidious slander about "infidels", western flag burning is rife (incidentally I feel the burning of a nations flag is just as offensive as any cartoon) and finally lets point out the fact that the recently elected Hamas plans on introducing something that equates to "an unbeliever tax". Where is the Muslim anger regarding this? Where is their priggish defence of 'the right not to be offended' when it is Muslims who are causing the offence?

If I were a Muslim, I would be more offended by footage of Iraqi terrorists beheading their victims or the frenzy of bomb attacks throughout the Middle East all committed in the name of Allah than I would be about a silly cartoon. If Muslims are concerned that Islam is being accused of barbarism and ignorance then perhaps they ought not overreacting in a manner that is barbaric and ignorant. If Muslims are concerned that Islam is being cast as a violent religion then perhaps they ought not respond to the depictions with violence and threats of violence.

Virtually every world religion has been mocked or caricatured at some point or another, and yes, occasionally, the response oversteps the boundaries of what is acceptable but in this instance the extremity and popularity of the reaction is so utterly beyond comparison that to even talk about the Christian response to the Jerry Springer opera in the same sentence is utterly absurd.

The fact that Islamic anger towards the cartoon is still even the centre of this story is something that I find incredulous, what about British anger toward the fact that 5-700 Muslims were permitted to march around London praising the fantastic four and threatening repeats of July the 7th, what about Danish anger that its embassy has been burned down and had fatwahs issues against some of its citizens, what about the outrage of western society in general that the sacrosanct value of freedom or speech is under attack.

Yet at the same time I read, see and hear things everyday that I find offensive – but that’s tough shit, being offended from time to time is the price of living in a free society and blasphemy is the price of living in a secular one. Whether or not the basis of my offence is racial, cultural or religious is irrelevant, as is whether or not the offence is widespread. And to be honest, I think the cartoons were stupid and without purpose, yet what they have come to symbolise is not – that no matter how ignorant and offensive what a person says is, they damn well have the right to say it.
*Applauds loudly*

I'm glad you did not use the word "civilized." :)

Here we go. Some meat. So who do you propose should do the curtailing? What laws do you think should be passed, if any? What kind of punishment do you think people who disobey any laws should receive? How do you reconcile that with the fact that offensive speech against every other group has been protected with your suggestion that we curtail it with regards to Muslims? White pride groups have been allowed to publish hate literature. Anarchists have been allowed to publish books advocating the overthrow of the US, and just about every other Western government. Black power groups have been allowed to publish books likening white people to Satan. Protestors have been allowed to follow President Bush around with sign saying extremely vile things about him, most of which I happen to agree with.

Should people still be able to post offensive images about Christianity like the Piss Christ the religious right used to attack the NEA a decade ago or do we just curtail speech that may be offensive to Muslims? What level of offense do you think justifies any criminal prosecution of a publisher for offending Muslims or everyone else if you think everybody should be protected against being offended by free expression?
well, if you read what I already posted, you'd have seen I suggested that hate litterature has got to be curtailed since it only coumpound the problem and is similar to being an accessory to a crime.

Pornographic material should be curtailed to be read by mature person as they can influence/ fuck up the mind of a person if they are subjected to it too early in their development.

Also, secret of states seem to trump freedom of the press. I leave it to you to ponder whether the security of the country is grounds enough to further curtail freedom of expression. I think it has already gone far enough as it is on this particular angle.

Also, freedom of expression does not gives you carte blanche on your actions. You still cannot libel, slander or otherwise do something illegal. If you say that East Canuck rape little boys, I am well within my rights to sue you and / or report you to the authorities (mods) as your rights end where mine start.

Sure you are free to post offensive material, just expect to be left to deal with the consequences such as protest, boycott, and the like. I am not condoning criminal activities. Death threats, vandalism and arson are not proper consequences and you are well within your right to expect to be protected from them. Just don't be surprised if someone sucker punch you for your views if you are being an jerk. They are not right in doing it, but you did incite strong reaction and, unfortunately, some answer with physical actions.

If I left out something let me know.

*Applauds loudly*

I'm glad you did not use the word "civilized." :)
oh grow up :rolleyes:

well, if you read what I already posted, you'd have seen I suggested that hate litterature has got to be curtailed since it only coumpound the problem and is similar to being an accessory to a crime.

What do you define as "Hate liturature"? Anything that offends others? Something that borders on slander? I've seen liturature stating I support terrorism because I am a firearm rights activist. That's promoting hatred against firearm owners. Should it be censored? Are the constant publications in ME papers agaisnt Jews "Hate Liturature"? Should there be an international boycott and protests?

What about the majority of political cartoons? They are inflammatory.

Pornographic material should be curtailed to be read by mature person as they can influence/ fuck up the mind of a person if they are subjected to it too early in their development.

Even though that is complete BS, how do you define "mature"? Is it an age limit (like 18 in the US) or do you want testing?


Also, freedom of expression does not gives you carte blanche on your actions. You still cannot libel, slander or otherwise do something illegal. If you say that East Canuck rape little boys, I am well within my rights to sue you and / or report you to the authorities (mods) as your rights end where mine start.

And such laws are already on the books. The offending cartoons did not libel, slander, or do anything illegal in Denmark. If you classify them as libel or slander, that can be extended to everything/anything else that might offend someone.

Sure you are free to post offensive material, just expect to be left to deal with the consequences such as protest, boycott, and the like. I am not condoning criminal activities. Death threats, vandalism and arson are not proper consequences and you are well within your right to expect to be protected from them. Just don't be surprised if someone sucker punch you for your views if you are being an jerk. They are not right in doing it, but you did incite strong reaction and, unfortunately, some answer with physical actions.

If I left out something let me know.

Had it JUST been protests or boycotts, this wouldn't even be an issue. Being that thousands of people have been rioting, vandalizing, calling for beheadings etc. not just of the cartoonists but against the entire idea of Western Freedom of Speech says more about them than those few republishing the cartoons.

Canuck,

Simple question. Is it OK for a society to have laws like hudood ordinances, because it is their culture ?
To be honest with you, I know little or nothing about their "hudood ordinances", and I am in no position to pass judgment. However, if that is their culture, whether it be right, wrong or indifferent, who am I to say that their culture is wrong? Besides, that has very little to do with the topic at hand.

In Canada, the vast majority of newspapers decided against publishing the infamous cartoons?? for very honest and noble reasons. However, Levant, a Jew and the Jewish Free Press, decided that it was their obligation to publish these cartoons??, in the name of "freedom of speech". I don't see how a Jew pissing in the Muslims cornflakes is going to help build bridges for a better understanding of each others' station in life. It is akin to pouring gasoline on a fire to try and put it out. Levant might call it "freedom of speech", I would call it an attempt to incite further negative reaction from the Muslim community. It is kinda sad actually.

First of all, there's no shortage of satirical and racist 'cartoons' about Jewish and Christian religious figures. Hell, an Iranian newspaper published such cartoons about Jewish prophets who are also prophets in the Muslim faith. And we in the Western world are even worse, especially w/ making fun of Christianity. Do we flare up and decide to burn down embassies??? NO!
Plus, by reacting this way to the cartoons, they're totally rejecting one of the main things Muhammad tried to teach, PEACE! He believed in pacifism! So technically, by trying to do well to his name, they're disgracing it.
And hell, if I were a Jew, I’d probably not like Muslim's all that much either... They seem to want to, y'know, wipe them off the face of the Earth!

Give it up. They lost the real argument a long time ago. They only want to argue about what the word "civilized" means now. They're finding it hard to support raping and killing women and children for honor so they bailed on that a while ago.
Actually the real argument is about A Jewish publisher publishing distasteful cartoons?? in his magazine, which I constue as a blatant attempt to fan the flames of hatred and dissidence.

Actually the real argument is about A Jewish publisher publishing distasteful cartoons?? in his magazine, which I constue as a blatant attempt to fan the flames of hatred and dissidence.

So he's a schmuck. Should he be censored? Should his rag be fined or closed down? Should he be arrested and charged? Should a Fatwa be issued against him? Does it justify the inane reactions by those who were "offended"?

What should be done then about the Iranian cry of counter-cartoons meant "as a blatant attempt to fan the flames of hatred and dissidence"? Does it justify torching ME embassies and businesses?

Well, obviously this guy is a dumbass and is probably just anti-Muslim so he wants to get a little more hate out there to advance his ideology. He should be prepared to accept the consequences of his action, but there should be absolutely no effort made to curtail the freedom of speech under any circumstances save in the face of imminent public danger, and that simply isn't the case right now.

First of all, there's no shortage of satirical and racist 'cartoons' about Jewish and Christian religious figures. Hell, an Iranian newspaper published such cartoons about Jewish prophets who are also prophets in the Muslim faith. And we in the Western world are even worse, especially w/ making fun of Christianity. Do we flare up and decide to burn down embassies??? NO!
Obviously the Muslim extremists don't share your sense of humour? As a matter of fact, they decided to get quite violent about the whole matter. What would be your solution?

Plus, by reacting this way to the cartoons, they're totally rejecting one of the main things Muhammad tried to teach, PEACE! He believed in pacifism! So technically, by trying to do well to his name, they're disgracing it.
Ahhh peace, such a noble goal. Perhaps the western world should be figuring out ways to broker peace instead of starting wars?

And hell, if I were a Jew, I’d probably not like Muslim's all that much either... They seem to want to, y'know, wipe them off the face of the Earth!
I can well imagine that the extremists on BOTH sides of this issue would like to wipe their opponents of the face of the earth?

Obviously the Muslim extremists don't share your sense of humour? As a matter of fact, they decided to get quite violent about the whole matter. What would be your solution?




They tend to get violent over pretty much anything they feel like. Should we coddle them in every instance?

well, if you read what I already posted, you'd have seen I suggested that hate litterature has got to be curtailed since it only coumpound the problem and is similar to being an accessory to a crime.

Pornographic material should be curtailed to be read by mature person as they can influence/ fuck up the mind of a person if they are subjected to it too early in their development.

Also, secret of states seem to trump freedom of the press. I leave it to you to ponder whether the security of the country is grounds enough to further curtail freedom of expression. I think it has already gone far enough as it is on this particular angle.
So you are for censorship, and not just of hate speech, but of pornography and “secrets of states” as well. You are an intellectual coward and the fact that you believe you have the right or that anyone has the right to control the information of another human being, sickens me.

To be honest with you, I know little or nothing about their "hudood ordinances", and I am in no position to pass judgment.

Fair enough. Hudood is only in Pakistan although variances of it can be found in other countries of ME and extended ME countries...since hudood laws are based on the Shariat laws anyways.

However, if that is their culture, whether it be right, wrong or indifferent, who am I to say that their culture is wrong?

No such generalisation of a culture was intended by me. My own culture shares a lot with the Pakistani and ME culture. Family values, patriarchial families with emphasis on women to do the house work, social rigidity, food, hospitality etc etc. Ever wondered why Bollywood (Indian cinema) is popular all over the islamic world?

Having said that, there is nothing judgemental in criticizing aspects of anybody's culture. There is nothing judgemental in saying "Yes, your culture has misogynism" because the fact is that there IS misogynism prevalent. There is institutionalised misogynism. Turning a blind eye to it and making excuses for it in the name of "oh it's their culture" is something that I cannot agree with (if you do hold such values dear to yourself).

I don't see how a Jew pissing in the Muslims cornflakes is going to help build bridges for a better understanding of each others' station in life. It is akin to pouring gasoline on a fire to try and put it out. Levant might call it "freedom of speech", I would call it an attempt to incite further negative reaction from the Muslim community. It is kinda sad actually.

I agree that this person is basically a professional sh1t disturber.

But what interets me in this whole episode is the line that you (and some others in this forum) take.

We should not be provoking the muslims, because they are violent.

It is like conceding somebody a right to be violent. I can point to several instances in the western world where other religions have been most sacriligeously treated (piss christ, hindu Gods on panties, tissue papers , footwears and alcohol etc). I have never seen westerners express outrage and go, "oh we should not be provoking them".

It betrays a unique dhimmi concept of conceding moral superiority to muslims by saying "oh we should not have offended you because we know you are a violent person and not to be offended".

So he's a schmuck. Should he be censored? Should his rag be fined or closed down? Should he be arrested and charged? Should a Fatwa be issued against him? Does it justify the inane reactions by those who were "offended"?

What should be done then about the Iranian cry of counter-cartoons meant "as a blatant attempt to fan the flames of hatred and dissidence"? Does it justify torching ME embassies and businesses?
Let's look at Canadian legislation:

Hate Propaganda (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid-181219)

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Fair enough. Hudood is only in Pakistan although variances of it can be found in other countries of ME and extended ME countries...since hudood laws are based on the Shariat laws anyways.
Obviously laws of the land based on religion.

No such generalisation of a culture was intended by me. My own culture shares a lot with the Pakistani and ME culture. Family values, patriarchial families with emphasis on women to do the house work, social rigidity, food, hospitality etc etc. Ever wondered why Bollywood (Indian cinema) is popular all over the islamic world?

Having said that, there is nothing judgemental in criticizing aspects of anybody's culture. There is nothing judgemental in saying "Yes, your culture has misogynism" because the fact is that there IS misogynism prevalent. There is institutionalised misogynism. Turning a blind eye to it and making excuses for it in the name of "oh it's their culture" is something that I cannot agree with (if you do hold such values dear to yourself).
I may be critical of another countries laws but they are the laws of that country. I don't have to agree with them, but that is solely my problem. IF the people do not like the laws they can have them changed through the democratic process in countries such as Pakistan and India.

I agree that this person is basically a professional sh1t disturber.
Absolutely, and his transgression only intends to flame the situation and does nothing to improve it.

But what interets me in this whole episode is the line that you (and some others in this forum) take.

We should not be provoking the muslims, because they are violent.
Others think that it is okay to provoke them just because they can. I don't see any benefit from the provocation and the fact that the reaction has been violent would suggest that continued provocation is likely to result in more violence and hatred towards the perpetrators. To me this is just irrational thinking.

It is like conceding somebody a right to be violent. I can point to several instances in the western world where other religions have been most sacriligeously treated (piss christ, hindu Gods on panties, tissue papers , footwears and alcohol etc). I have never seen westerners express outrage and go, "oh we should not be provoking them".
Their violent reaction to the cartoons??? is not justified as far as I am concerned, just as the continued provocation is not justified. Other religions may be more tolerant of having their God trashed, but it still doesn't justify the actions of the people who commit the sacrilige.

It betrays a unique dhimmi concept of conceding moral superiority to muslims by saying "oh we should not have offended you because we know you are a violent person and not to be offended".
This isn't a matter of "conceding moral superiority to muslims", it is a matter of common sense. The cartoons??? were offensive, and hateful. Don't publish the cartoons??? any more unless you want to witness continued violence?

BTW, I do appreciate your input into this debate. ;)

Other religions may be more tolerant of having their God trashed, but it still doesn't justify the actions of the people who commit the sacrilige.

No theist tolerates trashing of things sacred to them. The correct course of action would be to follow the laws of the land in dealing with the sacrilege.

It is not a sanction to trash their religion. It is an understanding that things sacred to me may not be sacred to you and while I find the trashing as offensive, I will follow the legal recourse and non-violent methods to address the issue.


This isn't a matter of "conceding moral superiority to muslims", it is a matter of common sense. The cartoons??? were offensive, and hateful.


Offensice and hateful are relative words. If it was my paper, I would not have published them. I would have published something really funny like these comics based on actual hadiths (narrations of Mohammed's life).
http://islamcomicbook.com/ :D

Don't publish the cartoons??? any more unless you want to witness continued violence?

Another simple question. :)

Would your opinon on the cartoons (and the issue of reprinting) be any different if there had been no violent protests by muslim mobs?

The Jewish publisher of Western Standard, Ezra Levant, has decided to reprint the infamous Muslim cartoons in his magazine, despite the urging of caution by the Canadian Prime Minister to be respectful of others beliefs.

After the release of the cartoons, Harper had this to say (http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060214/cartoons_060214):

"Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others," Stephen Harper said in a written statement, his first comments on the incendiary cartoons since the furor first erupted.

"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others.

"I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."

I believe that Levant is desirous of fueling the fire and that his publication of the cartoons has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with his disrespect of Islam.

I found the following cartoon??? on the Western Standard web site and fail to find any humour in it at all:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/02/more_cartoons.html

Canada is generally a peaceful and respecting country. Perhaps Levant, while persuing his own agenda, would like to change that?

Thoughts or comments. Please leave your hate or anger at the door, Thanks.

Peaceful does not mean "sucking the dick of every religion." We do have our own opinion and voice. We are allowed to say something and mean it. Just because we don't have an army doesn't mean we cannot give our stand. Harper might disagree, but he also believes in freedom of speech, especially if the person publishing is it PRIVATELY owned. If this was a government-sponsered paper, then I would understand.

I'm happy for this gentlemen for putting it up. Muslims have been doing cartoons and spreading lies about israel and states for DECADES, and the Danish (plus the rest of the world) are returning the favor.

I guarantee you, if Muslims started putting up protest signs that said "behead canadians" and "hope 9/11 happens to you all" in Alberta, there would be plenty of bloodshed. And I would cheer for them, since they would cross the line between "protest" and "threat"

Hitler certainly had freedom of speech and being in a position of power, was able to effect the death of over 6 Million Jews. You can't see a problem with this?


I think there is a big difference between "saying you hate a certain race" and "commiting genocide"

I may be critical of another countries laws but they are the laws of that country. I don't have to agree with them, but that is solely my problem. IF the people do not like the laws they can have them changed through the democratic process in countries such as Pakistan and India.


What, like GITMO?

You're plenty critical of other countries laws when it suits you.

Canada City']Peaceful does not mean "sucking the dick of every religion." We do have our own opinion and voice. We are allowed to say something and mean it. Just because we don't have an army doesn't mean we cannot give our stand. Harper might disagree, but he also believes in freedom of speech, especially if the person publishing is it PRIVATELY owned. If this was a government-sponsered paper, then I would understand.
I don't see peaceful solutions to this situation as analogous to performing fellatio. :rolleyes:

Harper's exact words were:

"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others."

Perhaps he doesn't see it the way you want him to see it?


Canada City']I'm happy for this gentlemen for putting it up. Muslims have been doing cartoons and spreading lies about israel and states for DECADES, and the Danish (plus the rest of the world) are returning the favor.
I think that you are being over dramatic in presenting your rationalization. I also don't believe that two wrongs make a right. Having witnessed the reaction by extremists Muslims to this issue, it seems rather absurd to continue to provoke them.

Canada City']I guarantee you, if Muslims started putting up protest signs that said "behead canadians" and "hope 9/11 happens to you all" in Alberta, there would be plenty of bloodshed. And I would cheer for them, since they would cross the line between "protest" and "threat"
I think you just contradicted your whole argument (about "freedom of speech") and clearly show your bias against Muslims in this matter. :eek:

What, like GITMO?

You're plenty critical of other countries laws when it suits you.
Gitmo is a whole different issue and is more about human rights violations but is irrelevant to this discussion.

I have stated that I do not agree with the violent reaction by the Muslims in regards to this matter but I also don't agree with continued provocation by irresponsible media outlets.

Let's look at Canadian legislation:

Hate Propaganda (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/181181.html#rid-181219)

Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.


So if they charge him then it will be admitting that the muslim community is unable to control themselves and is opposed to free speech. His defence easily falls under 3a.

Are you stating that he should be charged w/ this? Are you stating he SHOULD BE censored?

Gitmo is a whole different issue and is more about human rights violations but is irrelevant to this discussion.

I have stated that I do not agree with the violent reaction by the Muslims in regards to this matter but I also don't agree with continued provocation by irresponsible media outlets.

Wait, I thought this whole arguement was due to the violation of the Muslims human rights in offending them? Which is it? You've already posted a link supporting censorship of these "irresponsible media outlets" .

I don't see peaceful solutions to this situation as analogous to performing fellatio. :rolleyes:

Harper's exact words were:

"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others."

Perhaps he doesn't see it the way you want him to see it?

Are you saying that he supports censorship then? or is it more "We really wish you hadn't done that."?



I think that you are being over dramatic in presenting your rationalization. I also don't believe that two wrongs make a right. Having witnessed the reaction by extremists Muslims to this issue, it seems rather absurd to continue to provoke them.

Translation: Let's justify thier actions by giving in to them and encouraging them to do it some more w/ other things they don't like.


I think you just contradicted your whole argument (about "freedom of speech") and clearly show your bias against Muslims in this matter. :eek:

How so? They ARE putting up signs like that in reference to the Denmark, the US and the west in general. Do you deny this?

I think you just contradicted your whole argument (about "freedom of speech") and clearly show your bias against Muslims in this matter.


http://www.josalmon.co.uk/2006/02/cartoon-protests/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4682262.stm

Hard to be bias when IT is happening.

Canada City']Peaceful does not mean "sucking the dick of every religion." We do have our own opinion and voice. We are allowed to say something and mean it. Just because we don't have an army doesn't mean we cannot give our stand. Harper might disagree, but he also believes in freedom of speech, especially if the person publishing is it PRIVATELY owned. If this was a government-sponsered paper, then I would understand.

I'm happy for this gentlemen for putting it up. Muslims have been doing cartoons and spreading lies about israel and states for DECADES, and the Danish (plus the rest of the world) are returning the favor.

I guarantee you, if Muslims started putting up protest signs that said "behead canadians" and "hope 9/11 happens to you all" in Alberta, there would be plenty of bloodshed. And I would cheer for them, since they would cross the line between "protest" and "threat"
So in other words, you support Canada's "Hate Propaganda" laws or you don't? Which is it? Or do you only support "freedom of speech" for everyone but Muslims?

Ezra Levant = ugh.

Never liked the guy.

I may be critical of another countries laws but they are the laws of that country. I don't have to agree with them, but that is solely my problem. IF the people do not like the laws they can have them changed through the democratic process in countries such as Pakistan and India.



What about in countries where the people have no democratic representation whatsoever and are subject to abusive and tyrannical sovereigns that couldn't give a shit about the will of the people?

When laws violate fundamental rights it is wrong to uphold them on the basis of sovereignty, the killing of innocents is wrong whether it happens in accordance with national law or not.

The world is a much smaller place than it used to be, and the shields of sovereignty and moral relativism no longer gives carte blanche to governments to victimise their citizens as they wish. When a nation abuses its population via the laws of the land it IS our problem and cowering in moral and intellectual paralysis is not the solution.

well, if you read what I already posted, you'd have seen I suggested that hate litterature has got to be curtailed since it only coumpound the problem and is similar to being an accessory to a crime."Curtailed"... ok. How about a concrete argument here. What do you mean? Should there be a law against it? Who decides what's "hate literature" and what's legitimate satire, legitimate political speech? Since really your concern seems to be the violent reactions these cartoons have gotten, do we need special laws for "hate literature" against Muslims? What if a Muslim carries a banner that says "Behead those that insult Islam" and a newspaper carries a picture of it. Islamic groups may claim, "this is not representative of our religion!" Is the newspaper now guilty of "hate literature" because it carried the picture? What penalties should people found guilty of publishing or distributing "hate literature" suffer? Since my country's fate is obviously very closely tied to yours, what do you suggest the US do? How do we get around this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

especially because it is probably the amendment that is held most dearly in our country and because it would require an act of congress with a 2/3rds majority to change followed by ratification in 3/4rs of the states. How should it read after it is amended:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press except in reagrds to The Prophet Muhamed, Peace Be Upon Him; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What if the religious right in Canada and the US try to stifle artistic expression again as they did a decade ago because they don't like the depictions of Christ. Do we cave?

How do you reconcile this with the examples you gave below when you take into account the following argument:

You can make an argument that when our forefathers founded our countries both were concerned with freedom of speech, but none could have forseen pornography. Therefore they could not have intended to protect the depiction of sex. None could have forseen advertising as it exists today so you cannot say they intended to protect advertising. What you cannot argue is that they did not intend to protect political speech because the fact is that political speech is EXACTLY what they intended to protect.

Pornographic material should be curtailed to be read by mature person as they can influence/ fuck up the mind of a person if they are subjected to it too early in their development. :confused:

Also, secret of states seem to trump freedom of the press. I leave it to you to ponder whether the security of the country is grounds enough to further curtail freedom of expression. I think it has already gone far enough as it is on this particular angle.Umm... sorry irrelevent. People don't get busted for publishing secrets they are able to come across. People get busted for leaking the secrets, not for publishing them once they have been leaked.

Also, freedom of expression does not gives you carte blanche on your actions. You still cannot libel, slander or otherwise do something illegal. If you say that East Canuck rape little boys, I am well within my rights to sue you and / or report you to the authorities (mods) as your rights end where mine start. Yes. :) But you cannot charge me with a crime! :p If Muslims have a problem with a cartoon they are free to sue as well. They probably wouldn't win, however.

Sure you are free to post offensive material, just expect to be left to deal with the consequences such as protest, boycott, and the like. I am not condoning criminal activities. Death threats, vandalism and arson are not proper consequences and you are well within your right to expect to be protected from them. Just don't be surprised if someone sucker punch you for your views if you are being an jerk. They are not right in doing it, but you did incite strong reaction and, unfortunately, some answer with physical actions.

If I left out something let me know.
Great! If someone sucker punches me for my views then they can expect to be charged and prosecuted for a crime. I don't know anybosy who has a problem with Mulims protesting against these cartoons or even boycotting Danish goods. Christians do taht shit all the time. Its the burning buildings and the killing people and the threats of a 9/11 in Europe that people have a problem with. Christians don't do that all the time. Only Muslims do that.

So in other words, you support Canada's "Hate Propaganda" laws or you don't? Which is it? Or do you only support "freedom of speech" for everyone but Muslims?

There is a difference between saying "You shouldn't have drawn our prophet like that" to "I WILL KILL YOU FOR DRAWING OUR PROPHET LIKE THAT"

Apparently, people like you don't get it. I'll say it again; Muslims have been doing cartoons on israel and americans for years, and shows like Family Guy use Jesus and other religious figures as punchlines. Yet you do not see Hindus or Christians killing people, burning flags, or asking the death of Seth.

Just the fact that you defend those who wield signs saying "Kill those who insult Islam" makes me wonder why you are living here. Why aren't you holding the signs with them?

I believe that Levant is desirous of fueling the fire and that his publication of the cartoons has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with his disrespect of Islam.
Way to miss the point! The two are connected. Levant doesn't respect Islam. Levant is allowed to say that he doesn't respect Islam. It's all about freedom of speech.

Maybe Levant is an immature divisive bastard. I'm certainly not saying that he was right to publish this. I'm just sick of hearing people say, "this is not free speech, it's disrespect," as if free speech can't be disrespectful!

EDIT: If you're talking about this image:

http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images/hachfeld.gif

then I see nothing wrong with it at all. It's only "disrespecting Islam" if your idea of Islam is a scimitar-brandishing maniac. Most Muslims deplore the violent members of that religion who reacted so strongly to the Danish cartoons.

An excellent article by K.P.S.Gill (http://www.acpr.org.il/people/kpsgill.html) on Daily Pioneer date Feb 18. Pioneer puts new stories for the same url, but you can search in their archives from their site.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit3%2Etxt&counter_img=3
Tolerating Islamist intolerance

KPS Gill

A great deal has been written on the 'cartoon controversy', but it is far from enough. The current storm of orchestrated violence and intimidatory protests across the world is symbolic of a deep and sustained intolerance among Muslims, and of rising levels of tolerance of Muslim intolerance, that jointly undermine the possibility of freedom in large parts of the world.

Crucially, it is precisely this tolerance of intolerance that has allowed vocal and violent radicalised Islamist minorities to silence Muslim majorities and to transform the global image of Islam into the grotesque parody of the faith that the Danish cartoons sought - perhaps indelicately - to reflect.

Offensive though these cartoons may have been - and they were not offensive to at least some Muslims, who saw in them, not an insult to the Prophet or the faith, but rather a critique of the unrelenting violence that has become the defining character of much of the Muslim world - the criminal incitement and calls to 'butcher/kill/behead those who insult Islam' have only reinforced the images the cartoons reflected, "allowing mass hysteria to define Islam's message".

What dishonours Islam more? A few irreverent cartoons? Or the acts of remorseless murder, of relentless violence against people of other faiths, of the intimidation and abuse of all other faiths and communities, which the Islamists - including states adhering to the Islamist ideology, such as Pakistan - routinely engage in? Why, then, does the Muslim world not rise up in rage against these fanatics and political opportunists who are bringing disgrace and disrepute to their faith? Why are the voices of criticism against extremist Islam and Islamist terrorism so muted?

Indeed, why is it that all occasional and invariably qualified criticism of these terrorists is accompanied by vague justifications of the need to 'understand root causes' and the 'hurt' caused to the 'Muslim psyche'? Is the 'Muslim psyche' uniquely susceptible to injury?

Venomous characterisations of Hindus, Jews, Christians and, generally, all kafirs, are the stock-in-trade of the discourse in some Muslim countries, often communicated through official media, such as national television channels. The ideologies of hatred against other faiths are systematically propagated in so many Muslim states - we in India are familiar with the Pakistani case, where school curricula routinely demonise non-Muslims.

And do the words or pictures or caricatures by non-Muslims do more injury to the 'Islamic world' than the hideous acts of terrorism that Islamists have been inflicting on non-Muslims - and, indeed, on so many Muslims - all over the world? Worse, after so many Muslim-majority states have simply wiped out their own minorities, or are, even today, in the process of doing so, these very states go shrieking around about 'hurting the sentiments of minorities' when something is said against Muslims or Islam.

Indeed, 'Islamic' states oppress even their own sectarian minorities - be they non-Wahabbi Sunnis in some cases, or Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiya, or Sufi, in others - not only through systematic denial of elementary religious rights to these sects, but, as in the case of Pakistan, through state sponsored terrorist movements against such minorities - recall that the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan was set up by General Zia-ul-Haq to target Shias in the wake of the Iranian revolution, and continued to enjoy the support of the state under successor regimes, till it got mixed up with the Al Qaeda and anti-US terrorism, and lost its status as a sarkari (state supported) jihadi organisation.

Many 'Islamic' countries have institutionalised this intolerance, outlawing the public practice of any other Faith, and made the possession of any religious icon, other than Muslim, a punishable offence. Non-Muslim minorities live in abject terror of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, as in many other Muslim countries.

The truth is, the state lies behind much of the Islamist extremism and frenzy that we are witnessing today. To return to the case of the Danish cartoons, there was no 'spontaneous outburst' of popular sentiment; it was only after the Organisation of Islamic Countries decided to whip up emotions around the issue, and states like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia began to incite the rabble through official statements and actions, or statements by religious leaders tied to the regimes there, disseminated through official media, that the violent street protests commenced.

In Pakistan, the protests and the violence have principally been led by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa - the reincarnation of the purportedly 'banned' Lashkar-e-Toiba - which has flourished under state patronage, and that was cast by the Musharraf administration into a 'leadership' role recently in the relief operations after the earthquake that devastated parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

But the 'cartoon crisis' is not unique. Even while this controversy was raging across the world, Shia minorities were being attacked by Sunni terrorists in Pakistan; in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, a case was registered against the local chapter of the Bible Society of India for the 'grievous crime' of distributing "gas cylinders, three water bottles, audio cassettes and a copy of the New Testament in Urdu" to earthquake victims in a village in Uri.

In Ladakh, riots were engineered between Muslims and Buddhists because some torn pages of the Quran were recovered, leading to allegations of sacrilege. In the Aligarh Muslim University, a young girl was being threatened with collective rape for daring to protest against a diktat against wearing jeans and a T-shirt. These are only a few current and proximate examples of a remorseless oppression over the decades.

Such thuggeries are, of course, not unique to Islam. There are extremist groups drawing dubious 'inspiration' from other faiths who ape such conduct as well, and Valentines Day this year - as in the past few years - attracted the ire and violence of Hindu extremist hooligans. But these remain - fortunately - aberrations in the larger context of conduct among adherents of other faiths. They have increasingly become the dominant form of public articulation in the Muslim community.

There is an American Indian saying: 'it takes an entire village to raise a single child'. Similarly, it takes a very large community, often entire nations, to raise a single suicide bomber. For far too long, extremist Muslim discourse has been tolerated - to the point of incitement to murder - in the belief that acts of terrorism are distinct from such ideologies of hatred. But it is the wide acceptance within large sections of Muslim communities in many countries of these ideologies of hatred that produce the environment within which groups can mobilise, recruit motivate, train and deploy terrorists and suicide bombers.

Muslim liberals have long advocated 'understanding and tolerance' when dealing with Muslim sensibilities, but have seldom been known to aggressively argue for greater 'understanding and tolerance' for other faiths in 'Islamic' countries, where the record of intolerance towards and oppression of religious minorities is utterly revolting. There is a great 'Muslim exceptionalism' at work here.

The 'Muslim world' demands an absolute freedom without limits, but confers no freedom whatsoever, either on other faiths, or on dissent within its own faith. The 'tolerance' advocated by certain passages in the Quran is only something to parade at inter-faith conferences, and constitutes no part of the practice of most Muslim majority states - no doubt with occasional exceptions.

The demand, today, to impose a selective censorship in Europe on speech that is insulting to Muslims - when similar speech against other faiths enjoys full freedom - is an effort by Muslim minorities to impose, through mass violence and intimidation, their belief systems within the larger systems they have come to inhabit.

Europe would be, not only foolish, but suicidal, if it succumbs to this terrorism and coercion to invent new curbs on the media and on the freedom of speech. The democratic world must remain committed to its enlightenment values and ideals, and to the rough-and-tumble of free discourse in the 'marketplace of ideas'. All communal thuggeries, whatever faith they may claim to 'represent', must be brought to an end, and every available means must be bent to this purpose.

Personally, I think, the more fun we make of our own religions, the better it will be for the whole world, and, indeed, for our respective Faiths. I am immensely proud of being a Sikh, and am confident that no jokes or cartoons can ever undermine the eternal verities of my religion.

Canada City']There is a difference between saying "You shouldn't have drawn our prophet like that" to "I WILL KILL YOU FOR DRAWING OUR PROPHET LIKE THAT"
So then, you are in favour of Canada's Hate Propaganda Laws? You really haven't answered, but I will take your comment above to mean yes?

Canada City']Apparently, people like you don't get it. I'll say it again; Muslims have been doing cartoons on israel and americans for years, and shows like Family Guy use Jesus and other religious figures as punchlines. Yet you do not see Hindus or Christians killing people, burning flags, or asking the death of Seth.
I get it. I understand really well in fact. You think that it is ok in the name of "freedom of speech" to continue posting cartoons?? that not only are Muslims finding offensive, but are also causing some Muslim extremists to react violently. Yet if Muslims make signs such as "I WILL KILL YOU FOR DRAWING OUR PROPHET LIKE THAT", then you are all for shedding their blood. How are you any different? Your bias against Muslims is showing.

Canada City']Just the fact that you defend those who wield signs saying "Kill those who insult Islam" makes me wonder why you are living here. Why aren't you holding the signs with them?
If anyone doesn't get it, that would be you. Show me where I have defended their violent behaviour. You can't because I haven't. I am a Canadian and I love my country, and its' multiculturalism. I fully support Canada's Hate Propaganda legislation, and anyone who violates it should be punished according to the law. You on the other hand, have made lots of negative comments about my country. Perhaps you should be the one considering a change of residence?

"I WILL KILL YOU FOR DRAWING OUR PROPHET LIKE THAT", then you are all for shedding their blood. How are you any different? Your bias against Muslims is showing.
Who said anything about shedding their blood? All I'm saying is that we should not give one single inch in regards to our traditional protection of freedom of expression in the face of their anger. I don't want to go shoot people because they have those signs. I'm just not going to call for censorship because they are offended.

BTW - I felt the same way when Christians wanted to suspend funding for the NEA over the Piss Christ photo...

Way to miss the point! The two are connected. Levant doesn't respect Islam. Levant is allowed to say that he doesn't respect Islam. It's all about freedom of speech.
Not according to Canadian laws.

Maybe Levant is an immature divisive bastard. I'm certainly not saying that he was right to publish this. I'm just sick of hearing people say, "this is not free speech, it's disrespect," as if free speech can't be disrespectful!
Levant definitely wants to create a problem and when his magazine depicting the cartoons?? goes to press, perhaps he will get the violent reaction that he seems to want to provoke?

EDIT: If you're talking about this image:

http://www.cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images/hachfeld.gif

then I see nothing wrong with it at all. It's only "disrespecting Islam" if your idea of Islam is a scimitar-brandishing maniac. Most Muslims deplore the violent members of that religion who reacted so strongly to the Danish cartoons.
What is so humourous about someone being beheaded? I do believe that there has been a huge outcry about these extremists' measures? Maybe if we all lighten up as a result of this cartoon?? then we won't be so upset when it happens in real life?

There are extremists on both sides of this issue and as I suggested in another thread, perhaps the best bet would be to put them altogether in a huge arena, give them all the weapons they want and let them go at it. Then the rest of us could live in some realitive peace.

Maybe, just maybe (regarding the fact you find it necessary to mention and ironic that this man is a Jew), he has chosen to use his freedom of expression under freedom of the press to make an "ironic" statement. Did it ever occur to you that, as a Jew, he has chosen to draw some sort of comparison to what is said about the Jews daily in Arab and Muslim news outlets? These state-controlled media outlets demonize Israel and the Jews daily, blame every civil problem they have on the "Zionist controlled West & Israel", and run state-sponsored forums to deny the Holocaust.

Are we in the West to bow to pressure by the intolerant Muslim world for not taking into account their feelings over caricatures of their prophet, while the demonization of the "infidels" in almost every Muslim media outlet occurs almost daily? This furor, mostly perpetrated by the governments and imam's in these nations, does not even take into account that many Shiite Muslims carry small pictures of their prophet much as Tibetan Buddhists carry pictures of the Dalai Lhama.

I find it "ironic" that you place emphasis on the fact that he is a Jew, as if it is supposed to make any difference, yet in your original post make no mention of the way we (the Jews) are portrayed in the media in nations run by your compatriots in faith. I also find it "ironic" that you, living in a free democracy with progressive social views and laws, would make an issue of the free press this man is taking advantage of. Where is your condemnation of the Muslim press for it's intolerance and EXTREME lack of freedom?

This cartoon business has gone on far too long, and become way too charged. Humans must deal with being offended daily, so in my opinion, all this rioting and complaining like a toddler in a tantrum is rather asinine. Get over it already.

Maybe, just maybe (regarding the fact you find it necessary to mention and ironic that this man is a Jew), he has chosen to use his freedom of expression under freedom of the press to make an "ironic" statement. Did it ever occur to you that, as a Jew, he has chosen to draw some sort of comparison to what is said about the Jews daily in Arab and Muslim news outlets? These state-controlled media outlets demonize Israel and the Jews daily, blame every civil problem they have on the "Zionist controlled West & Israel", and run state-sponsored forums to deny the Holocaust.
By Canada's laws, I think what Levant is doing is more in the form of hate propaganda and I further believe that he is doing so to incite the Muslim community here. As far as I know, there is a peceful co-existence between the Jewish and Muslim communities here in Canada. Perhaps Levant would like to change all of that?

Are we in the West to bow to pressure by the intolerant Muslim world for not taking into account their feelings over caricatures of their prophet, while the demonization of the "infidels" in almost every Muslim media outlet occurs almost daily? This furor, mostly perpetrated by the governments and imam's in these nations, does not even take into account that many Shiite Muslims carry small pictures of their prophet much as Tibetan Buddhists carry pictures of the Dalai Lhama.
This isn't a matter of bowing to pressure by "the intolerant Muslim world", and nor should it be about inciteful behaviour by the intolerant Jewish world. And why do I keep hearing this poor excuse that because they are doing something wrong that it justifies a retaliation in kind? If you want to demonstrate that you are better then them, then I suggest turning the other cheek, or is this all about seeking revenge?

I find it "ironic" that you place emphasis on the fact that he is a Jew, as if it is supposed to make any difference, yet in your original post make no mention of the way we (the Jews) are portrayed in the media in nations run by your compatriots in faith.
That he is a Jew is significant to his intolerance of Muslims. Therein is his hidden agenda.

I also find it "ironic" that you, living in a free democracy with progressive social views and laws, would make an issue of the free press this man is taking advantage of. Where is your condemnation of the Muslim press for it's intolerance and EXTREME lack of freedom?
I haven't noticed any intolerance of the Muslim press here in Canada. IF they are/were posting inciteful hate propaganda here in Canada, then I would also expect that they would suffer the same punishments.

This cartoon business has gone on far too long, and become way too charged. Humans must deal with being offended daily, so in my opinion, all this rioting and complaining like a toddler in a tantrum is rather asinine. Get over it already.
It is becoming "way too charged" because the western world has deemed that it is appropriate to publish cartoons??? that are offensive to Muslims even though it has resulted in violence. I love your analogy to the "toddler in a tantrum", as it is so appropriate. The toddlers are on both sides of this issue and it is time for THEM to grow up.