babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Muslims may sue over cartoons

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Muslims may sue over cartoons
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 14 February 2006 02:15 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Images creating stress; publisher undeterred

Emma Poole, Calgary Herald
Published: Monday, February 13, 2006

The head of Calgary's Muslim community is considering a civil lawsuit against two local publishers for reprinting controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad -- images that have sparked deadly riots overseas.

Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said the cartoons have caused Muslims in Calgary, and worldwide, unnecessary stress and heartache.

"We are, on Monday, going to see lawyers. We will try to find out if there is a possibility to have a civil lawsuit. That's what we're going to explore," Soharwardy said Sunday.

"We see these cartoons as racist. We see these cartoons as hurtful, and we see these cartoons as against our religion. There has been damages towards the Muslim community for their losing their peace of mind, and creating stress on people's heart."

The Jewish Free Press and Western Standard Magazine, both Calgary-based, are among the first publications in Canada to print the cartoons.

One of the drawings depicts Muhammad wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb.

While copies of Jewish Free Press have been available since last week, Western Standard Magazine is expected to hit newsstands today. Publisher Ezra Levant said the threat of a lawsuit won't deter him.


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 02:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good for them.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 February 2006 06:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And bad for a free press. I would hope, and expect, that any lawsuit would be tossed out of the court. If not, in the future you may not see a lot of political cartoons in Canada.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 08:09 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This a.m.'s Grope and Flail says that the Calgary Crown prosecutor's office has already stated that there are not sufficient grounds for pursuing charges under Canada's hate legislation (good), and the city's "diversity resources officer" is working now on reconciliation locally (also good).

Poor Ezra. He tried so hard for martyrdom.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 February 2006 09:04 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by skdadl:
Poor Ezra. He tried so hard for martyrdom.

A-ha! I can always trust skdadl to make sense of a difficult news story. I couldn't 'get' why Levant was being so determined to publish the cartoons, knowing they would inflame the Muslim world in Canada and beyond. Now I 'get' it. Martyrdom. Gad, I can't stand Ezra Levant. I wonder if he's indirectly put Canadians at risk abroad by publishing the cartoons - look at the heat the Danes are experiencing.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BCastro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11420

posted 14 February 2006 09:24 AM      Profile for BCastro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ezra Levant is an obnoxious, attention seeking moron. Unfortunately there are no laws against that in Canada.
From: Halifax | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 February 2006 09:32 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would that mean the end of the charges, or can they attempt to lay charges in other provinces? I suspect that since the piece of trash is distributed across Canada that they could go to each province in turn to ask for charges to be laid for distributing hate literature (if that term applies? I assume a cartoon is considered literature, but is there such a charge "distribution of hate fish-wrappers"?)

Of course IANAL, so that's just a guess.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 February 2006 09:35 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Opps; Sorry, I didn't mean to call the WS a "fish-wrapper" ... I believe the proper term is "bird cage liner".
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 14 February 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps we should question the reasoning behind allowing people and groups to sue since the potential to offend and hurt peoples feelings following the outcome is so great.
From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 09:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lets just have it out in court. Great. Best thing to do.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 09:50 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm convinced that at least the turban bomb cartoon is hateful and designed to "transfer" people's hatred of OBL, al Qaeda, etc. onto all Moslems in order to make killing them indiscriminately more acceptable.

Another blogger does some legal analysis on my blog post from last week and concludes that current hate laws would not apply.

Too bad I say.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 09:53 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Huh?

I'm glad. Why give a sniggering pipsqueak even more of the platform he obviously hyperventilates for?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 09:54 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I, for one, welcome any new opportunities for people to sue each other over being offended. First of all, there's the awesome cash rewards for being upset (note to self: practice being incredibly angry and crying a lot) and as a nice side benefit, this might force people who want to offend other people to think long and hard about whether they can afford an expensive and time consuming lawsuit. Is it worth it?

Yup. Between me cashing in by being offended by something, and all kinds of offensive people and organizations having to put up (in court) or shut up, this is great!

Who should I sue first? Anyone else ever been offended and got plans to cash a cheque from it? What will you sue over?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 09:58 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No serious democrat would ever sue on such grounds.

Overwhelmingly, libel/slander/hate-speech legislation serves the rich and silences independent thought. We should not be co-operating with such a system.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 14 February 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Yup. Between me cashing in by being offended by something, and all kinds of offensive people and organizations having to put up (in court) or shut up, this is great!

Who should I sue first? Anyone else ever been offended and got plans to cash a cheque from it? What will you sue over?



Yup, Magoo, this is all about you, your POV and how you feel about it.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 10:01 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah.

I was interpreting it as being about common sense.

You don't sue someone because they offended you, or "created stress on your heart". Sorry, but this is so clearly clutching at straws.

Also, you just offended me. Would you like to settle out of court and avoid a lengthy trial?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
No serious democrat would ever sue on such grounds.

Overwhelmingly, libel/slander/hate-speech legislation serves the rich and silences independent thought. We should not be co-operating with such a system.


What do we mean when we use the word "democracy. I am not sure I am one, and the definition of what it is gets murkier every day.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the other hand, dehumanizing people of an entire religion with these kinds of cartoons in order to justify and soften the impact of indiscriminate bombings of civilians, torture, indefinite detainment etc. etc. etc. goes well beyond people being "offended".

Remember all those nazi cartoons of Jews in the 1930s (before the holocaust began)? What role did they serve? Would it not have been better if they were banned?

Do our liberal western democratic values outstrip the rights of Moslems to live free of fear and killing?

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 10:05 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would have been better if the real people of Canada had risen up and started speaking against them.

It is always better that way.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On what basis do you organize that? A court case is as good as any other, it seems to me.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:09 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
It would have been better if the real people of Canada had risen up and started speaking against them.

It is always better that way.



In an ideal world which we're striving for. But in this world, we know that bushco (and his puppet harper) will accept any support they can get for their murderous agenda which oks crushing little boys testicles to make their fathers talk.

Dehumanization was how the nazis and Japanese desensitized their citizens to do and accept the genocidal things that were done to others. The turban bomb cartoon is meant to dehumanize all Moslems as vicious suicide bombers who can and will strike anywhere at anytime in the name of their religion.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
lucas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6446

posted 14 February 2006 10:10 AM      Profile for lucas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If Rabble had been forced to defend itself for the now infamous 'Heil Mary' cartoon in a costly leagl battle... would we all be thinking THAT is good use of the court's time (and Rabble's money)?

I think much of the outrage over the WS has more to do with the personality of Ezra than it does the content of his little magazine, which, last time I checked, hardly anyone actually ever reads anyway.

As for lawsuits over feeling 'insulted or hurt'... honestly, if that becomes the norm then we had better shut down the medical schools and open law schools because we will 200x the number of current lawyers just to deal with the case load.


From: Turner Valley | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 14 February 2006 10:12 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the lawsuit succeeds there is a catholic group ready to sue about the pope as Nazi cartoons ... could be good times ahead for lawyers
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 10:12 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
On the other hand, dehumanizing people of an entire religion with these kinds of cartoons

This tale gets bigger with every retelling.

Now they've been dehumanized. By a political cartoon of Mohammed and a bomb.

If you don't stop 'amping up' the meaning of a cartoon, you won't have anything left to amp it up to tomorrow. By Friday you'll need to call it "one of the greatest crimes against humanity."


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, listen: insult Ezra all you like. That's the position he's defending, so go ahead - although if your insults are too lazy and not well thought-out, no one is going to pay attention.

Our independence of speech and conscience is protected from government interference, not the stupidities of our neighbours, who, just like us, are free citizens.

There is a reason for that. The liberty of the citizen is the default position in a democracy - government power over anyone is not. That's why the lovely little short-lists we have, all the declarations and bills and charters.

Sell them short at your own peril.

But also: speak up to virtue.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This tale gets bigger with every retelling.
No, Magoo, that's my opinion. Refute it if you can.

When Jews were all portrayed in cartoons as long-nosed, money grubbers in the 1930's, was that just a case of people being offended and satire? No. It was part of a much bigger agenda. You can't separate the two.

quote:
By Friday you'll need to call it "one of the greatest crimes against humanity."
And when the US razes another Iraqi city or attacks Iran (or some other nation) with or without nuclear weapons, what will we call it?

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 10:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Magoo: I do happen to think that a cartoon implying that Mohammed was a terrorist - and, by implication, simply being a Muslim makes one a terrorist - is dehumanizing.

Of course it's dehumanizing. Speak out against it!

We don't need the bloody courts to do that for us.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:19 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think its a real mistake not to examine Pulunatic's overall thesis about war time propoganda, and its purpose. The nation these cartoons came from is exactly in the position of an occupying power in Iraq. We can't just bubblewrap ourselves to the overall environement in which this message is coming out.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 10:21 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think that the "by implication" thing flies.

Mohammed wasn't some kind of Arab "everyman". If showing him with a bomb dehumanizes all Muslims, surely showing the Pope giving a Nazi salute to a member of the Holy Trinity does exactly the same to all Catholics.

Or a cartoon showing a bunch of Americans standing by their SUV eating junk food with big porcine noses and pig ears dehumanizes all Americans.

In fact, this whole "by implication" thing is a bit chilly. It appears to be an attempt to broaden the scope and reach of this, purposely.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 10:21 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So criticize that, Cueball.

Why do you need the heavy hand of the courts to put duct tape over the mouths of dorks? Why not defeat them in the open air?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you Cueball.

You don't have to agree with me Magoo but please don't dismiss me.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 10:23 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, you are entirely welcome to your flaccid opinion, Mr M.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't remember how you put it, but you spoke once here about how "democracy" was a set of compromises, really. There are relative positions depending on the circumstances. Nothing is absolute. Why not get the state to interevene against reaction?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:27 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl,
I don't disagree with you about the need to speak out and get in their faces BUT...

That doesn't mean that in certain extreme circumstances, hate laws don't have a role to play in shutting down these messages which are PART OF the drive to war and racism.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 10:28 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To me, the defence of the short list of rights and freedoms is absolute. Yes, they are ideals; no, nobody is doing them perfectly yet.

And yes, there are other principles and structures that are necessary.

But I have never said or thought that those things were open to compromise. Never. I think that people who defend them sometimes go down to defeat, but I think they must be defended that way.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 10:28 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, you are entirely welcome to your flaccid opinion, Mr M.

You mean until it offends someone.

Just for the record, I'm packing about $45 and a couple of transit tickets.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 10:30 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Polunatic, if we political people were really doing our job, out there educating people with our arguments about freedom and equality, we wouldn't need such laws backing us up.

If we don't defend that structural understanding, people will never learn it, and so it will be lost.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 14 February 2006 10:30 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

You mean until it offends someone.



Don't flatter yourself, Magoo. Your opinions aren't really ever offensive. They are merely annoying.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:31 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
She probably thought you could do better. But then she is an optimist.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lucas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6446

posted 14 February 2006 10:34 AM      Profile for lucas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Polunatic:
"...the impact of indiscriminate bombings of civilians, torture, indefinite detainment ..."

Are you refering to the US Armed Forces, or the Islamic insurgents... or both?


From: Turner Valley | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:36 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Polunatic, if we political people were really doing our job, out there educating people with our arguments about freedom and equality, we wouldn't need such laws backing us up.

If we don't defend that structural understanding, people will never learn it, and so it will be lost.


I see it a little differently. Without people doing what you suggest, there would be no public support for hate laws, in fact, there wouldn't be any hate laws.

We can't just leave it up to Moslems, Jews or any other group to defend themselves against a rapacious and racist majority. Everyone needs to speak up and say there's a line that can't be crossed in our society.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 10:37 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LOL! Nobody's ever been offended by me?

"And the award for best online community feigning outrage goes to..."

Anyway, who here would support the Catholic Civil Rights league taking rabble.ca to court over the Constable cartoon? Remember, whether they win or not, rabble would likely be bankrupt by it.

Anyone's beliefs strong enough to say "Yes, they should sue us and we should lose, because we dehumanized others"?

Anyone?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lucas:
Polunatic:
"...the impact of indiscriminate bombings of civilians, torture, indefinite detainment ..."

Are you refering to the US Armed Forces, or the Islamic insurgents... or both?


He is talking about building up the war fever to the pitch where we are all in it, on one side or the other, making hard choices. That is what he is talking about. Justifying the slaughter through dehumaization.

We see this here everyday, one poster generalizing about Islam and calling it bigoted, and then sayiing "fuck Islam. Another posing the question "Can we say that Middle Eastern men whom are obsessed with the sexual purity of women... love women less that European and American men? Of course we can!"

This kind of thing. Normalization of hate and dehumanization in the discourse generally. The mild kind of bigotry wich opens the door to the bigger kind, the facist kind.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:41 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the Pope has a checkered past, he's certainly fair game for political satire and criticism. In that cartoon, it's clear that il Papa was the target, not all Catholics.

Apples and oranges in my view.

quote:
"...the impact of indiscriminate bombings of civilians, torture, indefinite detainment ..."

Are you refering to the US Armed Forces, or the Islamic insurgents... or both?


Not all Moslems are insurgents but almost all the victims of indiscriminate bombings in Iraq are Moslems.

I think you're on the wrong discussion board.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:44 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And then of course your question, which ignores the plain fact that the war in Iraq began as an invasion of a soveign nation, but somehow you have rationalized it as being a state of equal hostility, where the insurgents, as ruthless as they are, are just as much to blame as the invader.

Weird actually.

As if those Czech's who assassinated Herr Hydreich could somehow be construed as being just as much the instigators of the violence as Germany was.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 10:45 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In that cartoon, it's clear that il Papa was the target, not all Catholics.

I see.

The Catholics who wrote us, and contacted other media about us, disagreed.

Anyway, I don't think it's any more clear that the cartoon of the Nazi Pope didn't include Catholicism than it is that the cartoon of the bombing Mohammed doesn't include all Muslims.

Face it: they were offended. It's simply not for you to decide that they really aren't, or that it's somehow different.

Where did you get the sense that you could just tell them to pipe down, because "it's different" and they should know this?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 14 February 2006 10:45 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:
If the Pope has a checkered past, he's certainly fair game for political satire and criticism. In that cartoon, it's clear that il Papa was the target, not all Catholics.

Apples and oranges in my view.


I remember seeing cartoons of the Ayatollah Khomeini back in those days. That seems to me fair game as well.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:48 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is not talking about "offence," he is talking about creating the war fever by spreadin dehumanizing propoganda. It is compltetely different. What is of course most discourteous about you is your insistance on not actually responding to what is said, but inventing a snide meta-discourse removed from the people whom you respond, by overlaying an interpretation that deliberately misconstures what was said.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:53 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're missing the point if you think that I'm arguing that anyone who's offended by anything should be able to sue or be covered by hate laws.

The Pope and Ayatollah are/were living people in our time who's records are open to scrutiny. That they're religious leaders doesn't get them off the hook. Mohammed has been dead for hundreds of years and hundreds of millions of adherents do not condone the extremism associated with Al Qaeda. To tar them with that brush is insidious, false and hateful.

In the same way, cartoons that criticize OBL or Ariel Sharon for their actions are also fair game as long as they don't cross the line where they incite hatred against all Moslems or Jews (for example).

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 10:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is not missing anything. He is obfuscating. He should be ignored.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 10:56 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm just curious: when did something that's insulting to someone officially cross the line into hate speech that dehumanizes them and promotes violence against them?

Also: who cares if the Pope is still alive? What does that have to do with anything?? He's the head of a Church, and we showed him giving the Nazi salute to a member of that church's Holy Trinity (who, by the way, is not alive... if that's so germane to all of this).


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
when did something that's insulting to someone officially cross the line into hate speech
When it's insinuated that all Moslems are crazy terrorists and therefore deserve whatever they get including death. That's when.

When it leads to this , or this or .

I'll spare you the dead baby terrorist pictures but they're available too.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This has already been explained repeaedly, try reviewing the previous posts for content. Then perhaps you will appear less confused as to the subject, and the arguement being made.

Hell, you could even respond to the arguement being made, as opposed to making up mendacious little thought experiments, and silly dead end questions.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 11:03 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When it's insinuated that all Moslems are crazy terrorists and therefore deserve whatever they get including death. That's when.

And when did one little political cartoon, originally published only in one Scandinavian country, suddenly develop the power to not just "insinuate" that all Muslims are terrorists, but also that they deserve death?

This is where the house of cards falls apart. It's a cartoon. It's not a secret code calling for the extermination of Muslims everywhere.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
If I may be allowed to reprint my post from another thread on the topic:

There is some very explicit jurisprudence in Canada including the Supreme Court that even scurrilous attacks against religion are a protected form of speech.

In Boucher v. The King, [1951] S.C.R. 265, the court acquitted a Jehovah's wtinees who wrote a virulent anti-Catholic pamphlet. The Catholic Church as a whole was described as an enemy of God. Quote from the judgment: "The use of strong words is not by itelf sufficient nor is the likelihood that readers of the pamphlet in St. Joseph de Beauce would be annoyed or even angered, but the question is, was the language used calculated to promote public disorder or physical force or violence."

It was a seditious libel case but the principles of the case have been quoted frequently as precedent in hate literature cases before the Supreme Court.

To prove a hate crime, one has to show a number of elements.

To contravene the Criminal Code, a person must:

communicate statements, in a public place, incite hatred against an identifiable group, in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Among the acceptable defenses are: the statements (or carttons) were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true; they were expressed in good faith, and it was attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject

Reprinting cartoons in the context of a political and journalistic discussion of a major international controversy shows no "willful" promotion of hatred and would be considered by any police department and any court (including the Supreme Court) to fall under the defense of discussion for the public benefit and/or attempting in good faith to establish an opinion on a religious topic. There is also no evidence that the Standard or any of the many European papers from the left, the centre and the rigth of the political spectrum that reprinted the cartoons have intended to promote civil unrest or violence. (There is also quite a lot of jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights protecting the right to launch provocative, scurrilous, scandalous or extreme attacks against religion - tose adjectives are taken from various judgments).

Before Babblers start talking about what is "hate propaganda" under Canadian law, maybe they should actually go read the jurisprudence.

Provocative writing is not a crime in Canada. Neither is reprinting controversial material in the context of discussing its political siginifcance. To be a crime, there has to be willful incitement and the likelihood (not the faint fear or the faint remote possibility) but the likelihood of a "breach of the peace".

Under Canadian law, our freedom of speech to be provocative is very secure. Punk rockers can continue to say things in bad taste, atheists can continue to attack religion, feminists can continue to say nasty things about the Church, gay activists can continue to attack religious groups as homophobic phallocrats, pro-Palestinian groups can continue to be virulently anti-Zionist, pro-Israeli groups can continue to denounce Palestinians as terrorists, Quebec nationalist can continue to denounce Quebec federalists as traitors, federalists can call for expelling the Bloc from Parliament... it is all protected speech.

That being said, it is always better for people to criticize respectfully and continue dialogue. But freedom of speech is also for the extremities of the spectrum. We have a few hundred years of jurisprudence that establishes that right to be stupid and nasty and scurrilous and seditious and obscene and blasphemous.

It happens to be a right most of us thankfully choose never to exercise but that right exists and Courts all over the West and in Canada will back that up. As they have tended to for a long long time.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 11:05 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Before Babblers start talking about what is "hate propaganda" under Canadian law, maybe they should actually go read the jurisprudence.

And sanity returns. Thank you. Now we can discuss what really happened, and not the fantasy version thereof.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

And when did one little political cartoon, originally published only in one Scandinavian country, suddenly develop the power to not just "insinuate" that all Muslims are terrorists, but also that they deserve death?


The implication that they are to be feared implicitly also insinuates that they must be fought. How dumb are you?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 14 February 2006 11:08 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Polunatic wrote:

quote:
,
hate laws don't have a role to play in shutting down these messages which are PART OF the drive to war and racism.


Yes, hateful rehtoric helps convince people to support war. But here are some other justifications I've heard trotted out to justify the current war in Iraq...

-We must liberate Muslim women.

-We must promote democracy in the middle east.

-Nuclear weapons are bad, and Sadaam has them.

-Amnesty International has documented human rights violations in Iraq.

-Sadaam won't give the Kurds a homeland.

Now these are all arguments I have heard from mainstream pro-war commentators, and doubtlessly they have contributed to some people being converted to the pro-war cause. So by the logic employed by Polunatic, we could just as easily construct an argument for banning feminist, pro-democracy, anti-nuke, pro-human right, and pro-Kurdish speech.

And in any event: France has hate speech laws, and their president just announced his support for using nuclear weapons against "terrorist" nations. The UK has similar laws, and they're a charter member of Bush's coalition of the willing. So I really question how much effect these laws have anyway.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trailwalker
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11094

posted 14 February 2006 11:12 AM      Profile for Trailwalker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can say what ever you want about Christians & Jews but you better not say any thing derogatory about Muslims. Levant was correct in publishing the cartoons . Think of a publication like Now magazine , now think about inserting Muslims instead of Christians and Jews in the all derogatory articals (of which there are many) Now magazine has published about these groups. Why is it OK for Now and not for WS?
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 11:13 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The implication that they are to be feared implicitly also insinuates that they must be fought. How dumb are you?

There is simply no shred of evidence of that in the case of the Danish paper or any other European publications that reprinted the material. There have been thousands of pages of articles and interviews with the editors of the dozens of publications that reprinted the cartoons and there is no indication of any of what you are advancing.

Neither would there be any evidence of this that would stand up in a Canadian court of law under the Criminal Ccde provisions for hate literature. Neither is there any evidence of this that would stand up in front of the European Court of Human Rights.

The great thing about our democratic courts is that they judge on facts, under rigorous rules of evidence, not based on ideological presumptions of any alleged "implications" that are not there in the evidence or the facts.

Thank God, we have the Chief Justice Beverely McLachlins of the world to protect our rights.

P.S. Ezra Levant is still a kook, but he has a right to be a silly and evil kook.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 11:16 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When it leads to this , or this or

Uh, which it has NOT. But thank you for posting a picture of a tank in Fallujah.

quote:
The implication that they are to be feared implicitly also insinuates that they must be fought.

Bullshit. Would a picture of Uncle Sam with a gun mean that Uncle Sam is to be feared, and must be fought? Or would it just be a comment on Uncle Sam's sometimes violent nature?

News flash for you: there have been many Muslims who've blown themselves up in the name of this guy. It's hardly over the line for a political cartoon to make note of that. This does NOT mean that all Muslims are being painted as bombers. But some of them have been, and it's been them that drag Islam into it.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 11:17 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I said in my first post, it's doubtful that Canada's hate laws would cover this.

That doesn't make the cartoon any less hateful.

quote:
So by the logic employed by Polunatic, we could just as easily construct an argument for banning feminist, pro-democracy, anti-nuke, pro-human right, and pro-Kurdish speech.
Except feminists don't advocate killing men, anti-nuclear activists don't suggest killing pro-war people and pro-democracy movements seek a equal place in society for everyone. Your point has gone over my head.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 February 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Well, you are entirely welcome to your flaccid opinion, Mr M.

*snort*


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 11:23 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
alleged "implications" that are not there
That's your opinion. There are implications to everything whatever the initial motivation. But just to summarize my point:

1) Mohammed is portrayed a suicide bomber.
2) Therefore by association, followers of Mohammed are smeared as either supportive of terrorism or terrorists themselves.
3) The US is at war in two Moslem countries where innocent Moslem people are killed every day in the name of fighting terrorists.
4) The US will take whatever help it can get to justify these war crimes - intended or not.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 February 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by brebis noire:
I remember seeing cartoons of the Ayatollah Khomeini back in those days. That seems to me fair game as well.

I remember those, too - some were quite vicious. I think I'm coming around to skdadl's POV - let's speak out, but let's not tie this stuff up in the courts where only the lawyers benefit and Levant gets tons of free publicity. But do we disband the Hate Crimes units as well? Is there a fine line between satire, caricature, and obvious hate crime? Are these controversial cartoons in the same league as hate literature? Who defines all this stuff, anyway, from a legal standpoint?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 14 February 2006 11:32 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:
So by the logic employed by Polunatic, we could just as easily construct an argument for banning feminist, pro-democracy, anti-nuke, pro-human right, and pro-Kurdish speech.

Except feminists don't advocate killing men, anti-nuclear activists don't suggest killing pro-war people and pro-democracy movements seek a equal place in society for everyone. Your point has gone over my head.


My point is that just as some pro-war people use anti-Muslim rhetoric to justify the war in Iraq, others use feminist and pro-democracy rhetoric.

Yes, not everyone who advocates feminism is calling for the killing of Muslims. Then again, not everyone who makes disparaging remarks about Muhammed is calling for the killing of Muslims either. Some of them are just engaged in historical debate about an influential person.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
BCastro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11420

posted 14 February 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for BCastro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When Jews were all portrayed in cartoons as long-nosed, money grubbers in the 1930's, was that just a case of people being offended and satire? No. It was part of a much bigger agenda. You can't separate the two.

Your point is? Don't you realize that Jews are regularly depicted in the same way in publications and public discourse in the very middle eastern countries that are now crying foul and worse?


From: Halifax | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 14 February 2006 11:54 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The differences between the Nazi-Pope cartoons and the Muhammed cartoons are going to be largely irrelevant if either makes it to court. For large groups of people in either group, the pope or Muhammed are symbols that transcend the individual (Muhammed was also a live individual at one point). If this sort of thing can be taken to court once, it will be repeatedly. Most likely often by lawyers belonging to the group in question who will volunteer their time.

Moreover, the fine distinctions being discussed here won't wash with most folks ... allowing one group to sue but not another is about the best way of raising hatred and resentment you could manufacture


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 14 February 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Muslims suing over the cartoom doesn't really impress me. Are they claiming that Muslims worldwide are so easily manipulated that all it takes is three cartoons to drive them absolutely bonkers, and therefore they need to have pre-emptive censorship to keep them in a bubble of carefully pre-selected images and ideas?

That sort of easily triggered emotional response does nothing to improve my respect, little as it is, for organized religion.

(PS. Take note - I would be equally scathing if the same kind of extreme reaction were shown by Christian fundamentalists to a cartoon of them bombing abortion clinics)

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 14 February 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's certainly their right to explore legal action. However, they must understand that Canada is a country where free speech is a right that thousands fought and died for. Did any of this group's members
contribute to those sacrifices?

I think they should get over it.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bobolink
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5909

posted 14 February 2006 12:28 PM      Profile for Bobolink   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
What I think is important about this lawsuit is that the plaintif has not rioted in the streets. He has not threatened anyone's safety. He was offended and felt defamed. So he takes the perpetrator to court which is a legal remedy we all have. He is responding with the rights all Canadians have to sue if they feel harm has been done to them. Would that other Muslims would do the same.
From: Stirling, ON | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 14 February 2006 12:30 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are you referring to WWII? Was that over free speech in Canada? I think it might have been slightly more complicated than that at the time...
From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So he takes the perpetrator to court which is a legal remedy we all have.

Agreed.

I seem to recall some religious-type in the U.S. who tried to sue CBS for the fact that he'd been offended by Janet Jackson's nipple during the Superbowl halftime "wardrobe malfunction" incident.

I don't think anyone would try to take away the right to take your greivance to court. But some lawsuits are destined to be dismissed, and this one (like that by the poor Christian whose life was torn asunder by seeing Janet's teat) this is one of them.

You don't sue, in civil court, over being offended. You need to be able to, if I'm not mistaken, show ACTUAL harm. That harm can't be "I was all angry" or "I felt bad/mad/sad/offended". It's quite simply not against the law to offend someone in Canada, and one should not expect a civil settlement to result from being offended.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 12:37 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's your opinion. There are implications to everything whatever the initial motivation. But just to summarize my point:
1) Mohammed is portrayed a suicide bomber.
2) Therefore by association, followers of Mohammed are smeared as either supportive of terrorism or terrorists themselves.

Sorry Polunatic, but you are simply factually wrong on this.

None of these arguments would hold up in a Canadian court of law. There is ample precedent (i.e. jurisprudence) for my argument.

You have perhaps assumed that your reading is the only possible political reading or that the steps in your aergument are somehow necesssarily connected. The cartoons could aslo be read many different ways, for example, as a statement not of what Mohammed is, but of how he is perceived by some Westerners or again of how he has been used by fundamentalist terrorists.

And even if Mohammed was intended to be portrayed as a suicide bomber, there is no logical connection between that and any implication by association that therefore his religious followers are like that or support that kind of thing.

I can legitimately think (or shout rudely) that Jesus (understood as Messiah) never existed, is a crude and nefarious and evil theological invention. There is no logical connection or association or leap with then stating that therefore Christians are dolts because they revere a myth. I can make that argument if I choose explicitly to do so, but you cannot read that "implication" into what is not there.

You will have to search high and low to find a court of law that will find against the cartoons. Maybe more than high and low - there may be no democratic court based on the rule of law and the proctection of rights that would find any fault with the publication of the cartoons.

You just happen to be wrong in this case.

P.S. And Mr. Magoo is correct: being angry or offended do not constitute legitimate grounds for legal action in Canada.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 14 February 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mush:
Are you referring to WWII? Was that over free speech in Canada? I think it might have been slightly more complicated than that at the time...

I'm speaking of those who made sacrifices so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have today. Freedoms like debating on rabble, drawing obnoxious cartoons if we feel like it, being disrespectful of authority, etc.

That's what I'm talking about Mush. How many of these folks who are threatening to sue made any such sacrifices?

I rest my case.

If they don't like what this Ezra guy is doing, they should create a blog lampooning him.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: white rabbit ]


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You will have to search high and low to find a court of law that will find against the cartoons.

Nonsense... I bet there are plenty of them!

quote:
there may be no democratic court based on the rule of law and the proctection of rights that would find any fault with the publication of the cartoons.

Oh. Never mind what I said. But scrap that bit about democratic, and maybe be flexible on the "rule of law" part, and we could be back in business.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 14 February 2006 12:43 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post
White Rabbit, I am not sure of your point. Canada is Canada, and all citizens deserve our respect, regardless of race, creed, colour and sexual orientation and that includes Muslims and Jews. In return I would expect responsibility from both communities.

Its Canada first, not Israel and not the Arab countries...and neither religion. A bit like Canada in the olden days when it became greater than the British or the French, neither Catholic or Protestant, its just a later version.

I appreciate my freedoms and defend them passionately. We all contribute, our great and unique country is the sum total of all its parts and peoples.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 14 February 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If they don't like what this Ezra guy is doing, they should create a blog lampooning him.


Having encountered Ezra Levant in person several times, I gotta say he would be a pretty hard guy to lampoon. He pretty much satirizes himself every time he opens his mouth.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 14 February 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
White Rabbit:
Did YOU make such sacrifices? Or did you inherit sacrifice by virtue of being a member of a "group" that did?

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Mush ]


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 12:46 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Democratic, Mr. Magoo, as opposed to the courts set up in dictatorships which exist to enforce the arbitrary whims of the secret police or Central Committee or the fearless leader.

And "rule of law" is a key concept: it refers historically to the absence of arbitrariness, the presumption of innocence, the right to be heard by an impartial tribunal, etc. Those who seek to censor speech in the name of various theological doctrines can come very close to arguing for the scrapping of many of these components.

I think I'll keep the "rule of law" part. Keeps most of us out of jail for the occasional disagreement with governments or theological dogmatists.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
None of these arguments would hold up in a Canadian court of law.
I was trying to make a political argument, not a legal one.

It's ok to hate OBL.
It's ok to portray him with a bomb in his turban.
It's not ok to substitute his face with that of Mohammed because that transfers the hate from al Q to the Moslem faith (can't think of a better word than transfer but you might get my point.)
Therefore it's hateful.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 February 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't believe in hate law legislation, and I think people should be able to publish whatever they want, so Levant can go ahead and publish these offensive images. They may be in bad taste, and they may cause a few more yahoos to hate Arabs and Muslims, and dark people in general. A conscientious editor would not publish these images, though.

What bugs me are people who insist that these cartoons are on the same level as "The Flintstones" and are thus harmless.

I posted this on another thread a few days ago, but it's probably more appropriate here:

quote:
"WW3 over a cartoon"

In a sense, the Danes' cartoon is war propaganda. After all, Denmark is an ally of the Empire in its war on Arabs and Muslims.

The intention behind those Mohammed cartoons is pretty much the same as that behind images like this:


A couple of days ago, while listening to "Leafs Lunch" on CFMJ, I heard a promo for the John Oakely show, in which the host said "Islam is evil."

The word is getting around.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
And many people Polunatic would make the "political" argument that ridiculing or mocking religious figures has no logical connection with being "hateful" towards a group following that figure.

There is no logical connection.

Some people who mock Jesus may "hate" Christians. But there is no connection, I doubt the comedian Mr. Bean "hates" Christians. Or Monty Python.

There is no connection. We should not buy into the arguments of rigid religious conservatives who seek to censor. The argument has been made point blank by many Muslim leaders: it should be illegal to question their religion (we're not talking here about mocking or ridiculingor hating their religion, many have argued any criticism, any questioning should be illegal). How about them "implications"?

This is a two-front clash: a clash between Islamic extremists and the vast majority of Muslims over various internal domestic struggles in a number of countries, and a clash between religious orthodoxy and free thinking in countries such as France, Germany and Canada.

I happen to find that "free thinking" has served us quite well over the past few centuries.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 14 February 2006 01:09 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mush:
White Rabbit:
Did YOU make such sacrifices? Or did you inherit sacrifice by virtue of being a member of a "group" that did?


Not directly, as I wasn't involved in any conflicts,being a baby boomer. My mother's first husband was executed by Nazis.

Now back to my earlier question. What - if anything - have the members of the group that wants to challenge this done to create the rights and freedoms we enjoy today?


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 14 February 2006 01:10 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
No serious democrat would ever sue on such grounds.

Overwhelmingly, libel/slander/hate-speech legislation serves the rich and silences independent thought. We should not be co-operating with such a system.


I agree with you regarding hate speech but not with regard to libel/slander. If I publish something that it patently false about you and it results in, say, you losing your job or not getting a job, you should be able to sue me for damages.

If powerful media were able to publish deliberate falsehoods about individuals without adverse repercussions to the media, then the media would be in a position to destroy individuals' reputations with serious consequences to those individuals.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 14 February 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:
Do our liberal western democratic values outstrip the rights of Moslems to live free of fear and killing?

Or, conversely: Does a "right" of Muslems not to be offended outstrip the liberal western democractic right to free speech?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 14 February 2006 01:14 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now back to my earlier question. What - if anything - have the members of the group that wants to challenge this done to create the rights and freedoms we enjoy today?

So, unless one of these people took the King's shilling in the '39-'45 war they should all just shut up?

Free speech, eh?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 14 February 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Of course it's dehumanizing. Speak out against it!

We don't need the bloody courts to do that for us.


Here, here!!

ETA: Or, is it "hear, hear"??

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 14 February 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What - if anything - have the members of the group that wants to challenge this done to create the rights and freedoms we enjoy today?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Hm...well, my mother's parents were Jewish and Mennonite (odd combination), but basically pacifist Canadians. My father's were English and French-Canadian, and most of that generation fought in the war. So, do I have half a right to protest? Perhaps I can wave a flag with one arm?


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 14 February 2006 01:21 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:
Not directly, as I wasn't involved in any conflicts,being a baby boomer. My mother's first husband was executed by Nazis.

Now back to my earlier question. What - if anything - have the members of the group that wants to challenge this done to create the rights and freedoms we enjoy today?


Presentation at Parliament Building by Daood Hassan Hamdani

quote:
...Pioneers

Islam and Muslims are not new to Canada. The documented history of Muslims in Canada dates from the mid-19th century. Thirteen years before the Fathers of Confederation created Canada, a teenaged bride of Scottish origin, Agnes Love, gave birth to the first Muslim born in the territory that was to become Canada: James Love, named after his father, was born in Ontario in 1854. He was the eldest of the eight children of James and Agnes Love. The youngest one, Alexander, was born in 1868, one year after the Canadian confederation was formed.

Another couple, John and Martha Simon, described as "Mahometans" in government documents circa 1871, migrated from the United States and settled in Ontario. Like James and Agnes Love, they were of West European origins: John was English and Martha French.

Early Settlers

Unlike the pioneers who settled in Ontario, the early settlers made their home in the western provinces. They were adventurers and frontiersmen. The spirit to explore uncharted territories, expectations of being a part of the momentous events in Canadian history, and the desire to share in the riches of the new land were the hallmarks of the early settlers. Thus we hear the story of the teenager Ali Abouchadi (better known as Alexander Hamilton) who walked 50 kilometres with his uncle from Lala to Beirut in Lebanon, to board the boat to Montreal on his way to claim a share of the Klondike gold. He was too late to make a fortune in gold mining but his entrepreneurship led to other successful business ventures. More Muslims came to work on the construction of the railway linking the west with the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Still others arrived in the first decade of this century to open up Alberta and Saskatchewan for settlement...


I guess they've contributed as much to Canada as any other Canadians of any creed or colour.

Edit: Website about Muslims in Canada; links here to video clips about pioneers on the prairies.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 February 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please, let's stop pretending that this is an argument about one group being "offended" by a cartoon ... that is not the point, not the issue, not the real subject, and has nothing to do with the law.

I imagine that all neo-nazi skinheads are "offended" by non-whites, and I imagine that those non-whites targeted by the neo-nazis are also "offended".

Non of that is at issue until such time as action is taken by either group to use their state of being "offended" to enact violence against the other group, or until such time as someone manipulates or tries to manipulate those being "offended" into taking violent reactions.

The cartoons "offend", and that's no big deal really, but when Levant et al try to take advantage of that "offense" to provoke one group to act violently, then that's where the law should step in. And the fact that he is attempting to provoke Muslims rather than Christians to act violently really doesn't make any difference.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 14 February 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:

Now back to my earlier question. What - if anything - have the members of the group that wants to challenge this done to create the rights and freedoms we enjoy today?

Well, they're doing more than you, clearly, if you mean to assert that if they didn't 'build' those rights they shouldn't have access to them.

Rights exist in the instant--they're not a durable good that one can own an inventory of.

No matter what people with your skin colour did in the past, the only thing that matters is what rights are being respected today.

~~

I'll believe that Ezra Levant is acting out of concern for freedom of speech the instant he publishes the blood libel, not when he publishes hate literature against a group he already hates.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 14 February 2006 01:41 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quote: No matter what people with your skin colour did in the past, the only thing that matters is what rights are being respected today.

An aside: Isn't it odd that people who would say something like we've seen above, would probably also argue that today's non-Aboriginal Canadians or their institutions shouldn't be held responsible for the various offenses committed their forefathers against FN people?

Quote:
I'll believe that Ezra Levant is acting out of concern for freedom of speech the instant he publishes the blood libel, not when he publishes hate literature against a group he already hates.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Yep. Totally disingenuous.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Mush ]- Cause I can't type with my hand in a cast.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Mush ]


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 14 February 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of the irony in this is hilarious. One of the people wanting to charge the Western Standard over hate crimes is the fellow who said all Israelies over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for violence. Does he realize he's attacking the very principle (freedom of speech) that let him get away with his statement?

As for the aboriginals, most of us don't see it as people being guilty for what their ancestors did, we see it as a case of 1) treaty obligations - something done between different nations, not an internal Canadian matter 2) current justice.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Non of that is at issue until such time as action is taken by either group to use their state of being "offended" to enact violence against the other group, or until such time as someone manipulates or tries to manipulate those being "offended" into taking violent reactions.
My point is that the violence is already ongoing - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc. Fomenting hatred is a way of legitimizing and gaining support for these wars. The turban bomb cartoon (the only one I've seen) is a pro-war cartoon which nstills hatred toward "the enemy" personified by Mohammed. How many different ways can I say this?

The question as to whether or not it should be legal is separate.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 14 February 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by retread:

As for the aboriginals, most of us don't see it as people being guilty for what their ancestors did, we see it as a case of 1) treaty obligations - something done between different nations, not an internal Canadian matter 2) current justice.[/QB]


Sure, SANE people do, but haven't you heard folks say they felt like they (white folks) are being blamed unfairly for historical wrongs? "Why should I have to pay taxes that go to...[compensation for victims of residential schools, etc]?" Man, I hear that all the time, expecially while living in the West.

So now White Rabbit sez that you don't have the right to protest unless your "group" (read "race") fought in WWII. Just seemed to me that you can't have it both ways- both take ethnic credit (in some weird way), and avoid ethnic culpability.

Not important- just struck me.


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 14 February 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mush:


So now White Rabbit sez that you don't have the right to protest unless your "group" (read "race") fought in WWII. Just seemed to me that you can't have it both ways- both take ethnic credit (in some weird way), and avoid ethnic culpability.


That's not what I said. I asked if those who are complaining contributed toward building the rights they now apparently reject.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 14 February 2006 03:08 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:
That's not what I said. I asked if those who are complaining contributed toward building the rights they now apparently reject.
Exactly who is rejecting exactly what rights?

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 14 February 2006 03:15 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The group doing the complaining in this instance. What contribution have they made toward establishing freedom of speech as a basic right in this country?

BTW Mush - those basic freedoms were defended by persons of all ethnic groups in this country...Natives, Francophones, Blacks, and yes,
Europeans.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 14 February 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly who are members of the group to which you referred? Are they all Muslims in Canada? Do you imagine they all think alike? Are you saying that they have no right to complain in any fashion, that they have no right to free speech?

What have you done to protect free speech?


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 14 February 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What contribution have they made toward establishing freedom of speech as a basic right in this country?
By this logic, babies and children born in Canada cannot share in democratic rights because they didn't establish them?

What a crock!


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 14 February 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Exactly who are members of the group to which you referred? Are they all Muslims in Canada? Do you imagine they all think alike? Are you saying that they have no right to complain in any fashion, that they have no right to free speech?

What have you done to protect free speech?


The group that is complaining, how many times must I say that?

The leader of a large Muslim group was quoted as saying these cartoons are hate literature. But it was since disclosed that last fall, he said all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets
for suicide bombers.

I've done plenty over the years to protect free speech. I have confronted anti-abortion protestors, exposed the navy officials on the East Coast when they purchased copies of American Psycho for their navy libraries, I was out in full force in Dec. 04 when George W. was here to give a speech, I've attended Henry Morgentaler's trial here, I've been interviewed many times on the topic of adoption secrecy, as well as many other things.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And the fact that he is attempting to provoke Muslims rather than Christians to act violently really doesn't make any difference.

Uh, exactly how is he provoking them to act violently??

I've been finding that kind of an interesting sidebar to this whole fiasco: apparently everyone involved was supposed to just somehow know that this would result in violence or death.

If I (or heck, rabble) insults the Pope I expect angry letters.

If someone insults Jews, I expect angry letters from the CJC or similar.

So why is it that everyone was supposed to expect violence or death because of this, and why is it that reposting these images apparently makes one an accessory to this?

Aren't people responsible for their (re)actions anymore? How is Ezra in any way responsible if someone acts on their anger??

ed'd to add:

quote:
The turban bomb cartoon (the only one I've seen) is a pro-war cartoon which nstills hatred toward "the enemy" personified by Mohammed. How many different ways can I say this?

How about trying one that isn't just your personal opinion.

I don't think that cartoon instills hatred. I've seen it, and if it "instills hatred" then I'm afraid it's defective. I'm betting it didn't instill any hatred in you, either.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 February 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Uh, exactly how is he provoking them to act violently??

I've been finding that kind of an interesting sidebar to this whole fiasco: apparently everyone involved was supposed to just somehow know that this would result in violence or death.

If I (or heck, rabble) insults the Pope I expect angry letters.

If someone insults Jews, I expect angry letters from the CJC or similar.

So why is it that everyone was supposed to expect violence or death because of this, and why is it that reposting these images apparently makes one an accessory to this?


See, another piece of "half think".

No where did I say that I though this would provoke Muslims to violence ... what I said was that Levant and company are TRYING to provoke violence from those THEY believe are prone to act violently.

"Muslims" in general will of course not react violently, but there is always a chance, as there is in group or religion, that a tiny radical fraction will decide to take violent action. Or maybe a group of Muslims, like the Christians you mention above, will picket the offices of the WS. And if that were to happen, if Muslims set up a protest action in front of the WS offices, or if some radical Muslim were to take a violent action, what do you suppose Levant and the WS would have to say about this action? Would they write a piece about how everyone should stay calm as the protest was a democratic action, or that the violent actions was obviously the actions of a single deranged radical with no commonality to the Muslim community, or would there be article after article in the WS about the evil Muslims and their fanatical beliefs?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 14 February 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:
The leader of a large Muslim group was quoted as saying these cartoons are hate literature. But it was since disclosed that last fall, he said all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets
for suicide bombers.

That's certainly a defensible position, considering that Israel is at war & the vast majority of Israelis over the age of 18 are required to be members of the army.

So they're soldiers, in a war zone, of a country at war. What's controversial about the view that these constitute legitimate targets?

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 14 February 2006 04:54 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:

To prove a hate crime, one has to show a number of elements.

To contravene the Criminal Code, a person must:

communicate statements, in a public place, incite hatred against an identifiable group, in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Before Babblers start talking about what is "hate propaganda" under Canadian law, maybe they should actually go read the jurisprudence.


Um.... maybe you should actually read the Criminal Code. You've only discussed the public incitement offence. Wilful promotion of hatred does NOT require a likely breach of the peace. That's the section that was upheld in Keegstra.

I've already argued in another thread that I think Keegstra is not the most secure decision, that is, that if considered by the current Court the outcome might be very different.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 14 February 2006 05:00 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's certainly a defensible position, considering that Israel is at war & the vast majority of Israelis over the age of 18 are required to be members of the army.

Defensible or not, it can easily be argued that he is inciting hatred towards an identifiable group (is he including Isreali senior citizens as legit targets too?). So, if we agree that publishing a cartoon of Mohammed is inciting hatred, then I don't understand how Elmasarey's comments would get a pass.

btw I don't believe publishing those cartoons comes anywhere near a 'hate crime'.


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 05:03 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
what I said was that Levant and company are TRYING to provoke violence from those THEY believe are prone to act violently.

I get that.

But I can only provoke someone. I can't also dictate their response to it.

How does one provoke someone else to act violently?

And what would make them think anyone would react violently to some reprinted cartoons?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 05:13 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has defined the meanings of "wilful", "promote" and "hatred".

Mental note to self: never quote Criminal Code from memory. On the other hand - Levant has repeated his statements about the cartoons on TV (i.e. public place) so my "breach of the peace" argument may not be so off the mark. But point taken, always have a copy of Martin's annotated Criminal Code next to the computer.

You seem familiar Pookie with the topic so I can assume I do not have to cite the case law to you. You are no doubt familiar enough with the jurisprudence then to know that the reprint by the Western Standard does not meet the definitions of "wilful" "promotes" and "hatred" and that numerous defenses already discussed earlier would apply.

But this could all be academic. I don't think it is likely that the Attorney-General of any province would press charges. They are highly unlikely to win any case they would seek to launch, since none of the required elements of proof exist.

As for the other comment by another Babbler about anyone over 18 in Israel being a legitimate military target, perhaps someone should point him to all the international legal materials available as well as to all the Amnesty International documentation that the deliberate targetting of civilians constitutes a crime, and perhaps even a crime against humanity depending on the specific circumstances of the attack. And anyone not in the army is a civilian, by universally accepted definition.

It is odd or ironic or brain-numbingly stupefying (and very tragic for image of the Canadian Muslim community) that one of the more prominent men to complain against the Western Standard is an apologist for crimes against humanity (as well as a theologically conservative sexist and homophobe)

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 14 February 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's certainly a defensible position, considering that Israel is at war & the vast majority of Israelis over the age of 18 are required to be members of the army.

Almost anything is defensible if you look at it from the right light. The suicide bombers claim Muhammed inspires their actions ... which is what the cartoonists use to defend their cartoon. Both generalize (not all Israelies over the age of 18 are in fact enlisted in their army), both created outrage, both arguably are racist. If you believe in freedom of speech both are allowable, if you don't neither are.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 14 February 2006 05:27 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

That's certainly a defensible position, considering that Israel is at war & the vast majority of Israelis over the age of 18 are required to be members of the army.

So they're soldiers, in a war zone, of a country at war. What's controversial about the view that these constitute legitimate targets?

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


Oh, but suicide bombers don't restrict their targets to those over 18. They take out babies, the disabled, opponents of the Israeli government,
and any other non-Israeli who might happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The US claims to be at war. Do you likewise support the actions of suicide bombers in that country? A yes or no will suffice.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 14 February 2006 05:29 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

How about trying one that isn't just your personal opinion.

I don't think that cartoon instills hatred. I've seen it, and if it "instills hatred" then I'm afraid it's defective. I'm betting it didn't instill any hatred in you, either.


Oh for fuck's sakes, you have been spinning like a top on this issue, dodging point after point. Your final paragraph shows your ignorance; you presume that because you (as a non-Muslim) are not offended, then you have the right to blanket everyone with this.

This is absolutely hate speech, and I am 100% in support of charges against anyone who propagates this hate. It should be pretty clear to any unbiased observer that portraying an entire people as barbaric, suicidal, assasins arouses predictable responses; namely, hatred and violence. Those advocating this dispicable type of hatred towards an entire group should be ashamed of themselves. Those defending them are equally disgusting.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 14 February 2006 05:33 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
You are no doubt familiar enough with the jurisprudence then to know that the reprint by the Western Standard does not meet the definitions of "wilful" "promotes" and "hatred" and that numerous defenses already discussed earlier would apply.


[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


Just to be clear, I am skeptical of all of the hate propaganda laws (possible exception for promoting genocide).

I'm not sure if your above point is as a matter of law or fact. The trial judge would instruct the jury about the standard. Would a jury absolutely, 100% reject the cartoons in this circumstance as hate propaganda? I'm not sure, which is why I am skeptical about the entire enterprise.

And, yes, hate propaganda is unique in that an indictment requires the express approval of the Attorney General.

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone needs to memorize the Criminal Code. But, given your little admonition, I couldn't help myself. I think we're pretty much on the same wavelength with respect to the proper role of the criminal law.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 February 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your final paragraph shows your ignorance; you presume that because you (as a non-Muslim) are not offended, then you have the right to blanket everyone with this.

Actually I was just pointing out that a drawing of Mohammed with a bomb does not "make" me hate Muslims, or anyone else. In fact I'm betting that dozens of babblers have seen the cartoon in question and haven't been "made" to hate anyone.

If anyone wants to stand up and say "Yes, I saw that cartoon, and now I think all Muslims are suicide bombers and I hate them" then I'll rethink it.

quote:
This is absolutely hate speech

I think that was nicely debunked already, and no, saying it again won't make it true, no matter what kind of angry grimace you twist yourself into when you do.

quote:
It should be pretty clear to any unbiased observer that portraying an entire people as barbaric, suicidal, assasins arouses predictable responses

But they didn't. The cartoon portrayed one man, with a bomb. It didn't even say why he had a bomb.

The rest is happening in your fertile imagination.

quote:
Those defending them are equally disgusting.

Such is my respect for free speech that I even defend your right to have a little tantrum about it. No need to thank me, Kevin.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 05:37 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is absolutely hate speech, and I am 100% in support of charges against anyone who propagates this hate. It should be pretty clear to any unbiased observer that portraying an entire people as barbaric, suicidal, assasins arouses predictable responses; namely, hatred and violence. Those advocating this dispicable type of hatred towards an entire group should be ashamed of themselves. Those defending them are equally disgusting.

That's a harsh opinion which neglects many of the arguments people have been trying to make here.

For it to be "hate sppech", it has to meet all of those criteria people have been pointing out. And as I and others have argued on this thread and elsewhere, all the jurisprudence on the topic (in Canada and in front of the tribunals like the European Court of Human Rights) says the opposite.

Because one doesn't like a publication or cartoon on political or ideological grounds does not make it "hate speech". And especially in these current conditions, the argument is dangerous and a threat to the civil liberties of everyone, as we witness conservative religious forces trying to repress the right to debate and comment on matters of public importance in the name of a theology they want to make it illegal to question (we are not talking about mocking or ridiculing that belief system - many if not most of the spokespeople here and in other countires want to make criticism of their religion in any form a criminal or civil offense).

There is simply no way I can see for any person with progressive values and a knowledge of the historical fight for freedom of speech and conscience to support the efforts of the religious orthodox to suppress debate.

Again, as noted a few times, the historical record on freedom of speech clearly states that it includes things most of us would never choose to say out of respect for others, but it does include obscene, scurrilous, provocative, extreme, blasphemous, seditious, and offensive language. Except in the narrow conditions covered in the criminal law, and those conditions are extremely extremely narrow. Thank God for that - many (most?) Babblers would otherwise have been jailed or punsihed under the kinds of things being proposed by various Moslem spokespersons.

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 14 February 2006 05:40 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:
The group that is complaining, how many times must I say that?

The leader of a large Muslim group was quoted as saying these cartoons are hate literature. But it was since disclosed that last fall, he said all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets
for suicide bombers...


What's the context of what he said? Which organization and how many Canadian Muslims endorse what he said?

Are you saying that members of his specific organization should not have the right to free speech?

quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:
...I've done plenty over the years to protect free speech. I have confronted anti-abortion protestors, exposed the navy officials on the East Coast when they purchased copies of American Psycho for their navy libraries, I was out in full force in Dec. 04 when George W. was here to give a speech, I've attended Henry Morgentaler's trial here, I've been interviewed many times on the topic of adoption secrecy, as well as many other things.
And did you expect free speech rights to be available only to people you liked, or to "groups" you think are worthy?

[ 14 February 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 06:22 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Unlike torching buildings and threatening violence bringing a civil lawsuit is a legitimate option - even a frivolous one. Of course it will not succeed, any statement of claim would probably be struck out on a preliminary motion and hence won't even make it to trial.

I'm willing to wager anyone an amount between $100 and $20,000 that publishers of the cartoons will not face criminal nor civil penalties.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 14 February 2006 06:32 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm willing to wager anyone an amount between $100 and $20,000 that publishers of the cartoons will not face criminal nor civil penalties.

But it is perfectly correct that they face lots of even harsh and intemperate criticism, even if many of us here defend their right to publish material DIRECTLY, immediately related to a huge international controversy on Moslem-non-Moslem relations with which we have to struggle for the next many years.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 14 February 2006 06:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:

But it is perfectly correct that they face lots of even harsh and intemperate criticism, even if many of us here defend their right to publish material DIRECTLY, immediately related to a huge international controversy on Moslem-non-Moslem relations with which we have to struggle for the next many years.


In this dispute, who is NOT facing "even harsh and intemperate criticism"? Who?

What self-respecting publisher who wishes to defend his right to level "even harsh and intemperate criticism" against others would whimper when the same was directed back at him?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 14 February 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:

Those advocating this dispicable type of hatred towards an entire group should be ashamed of themselves. Those defending them are equally disgusting.

We're all criminals now. Sticks and stones Kevin, sticks and stones....


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 14 February 2006 06:53 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At the risk of restating the obvious:

Freedom of expression includes the right to publish things that other people find offensive. If you start trying to limit it on the grounds that it offends person A or insults person B's religion or makes person C feel threatened, then it isn't freedom of expression any more. And that means, as I argued on another thread, that you have to let Ernst Zundel argue that the Holocaust never happened, and that you have to let Andres Serrano display images of Jesus on the cross in bottles of urine.

What you don't have to do is dignify such things like this with attention, let alone a response. What's his name, Levant, is in the same category. He's an obnoxious, insignificant little putz who's looking for attention by trying to stir up a culture war. Why help him?


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 14 February 2006 07:26 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:


I get that.

But I can only provoke someone. I can't also dictate their response to it.

How does one provoke someone else to act violently?


I'll have to get back to you on your question on how to provoke someone ... Stephen Hawkings just called and I have to go give him quantum physics lessons.

quote:

And what would make them think anyone would react violently to some reprinted cartoons?

Ummm, let me think .... oh yeah, someone might think that because people have already done so?

Are you forgetting why this story is in the news in the first place? It's not because the cartoons were offensive, it's because some people reacted violently to the provocation of how they were presented.

All facts point to the reality that the cartoons and the way they are being presented are not designed to provoke me or you to act violently towards Muslims ... the reality of this issue point to the clear fact that the cartoons and the way they are being presented are designed to provoke radicals of the Muslim faith towards hatred of non-Muslims.

Of course, this is just another "double-speak" right wing tactic ... cause a conflict between two groups by manipulating the marginalized group towards violence on the established group, and then through up strawmen arguments to try and confuse the situation.

They slap you in the face with their left hand and then when you accuse them of slapping you in the face they argue black and blue about how they couldn't have slapped you in the face because their right hand was in their pocket the whole time.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 07:29 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:

Oh, but suicide bombers don't restrict their targets to those over 18. They take out babies, the disabled, opponents of the Israeli government,
and any other non-Israeli who might happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The US claims to be at war. Do you likewise support the actions of suicide bombers in that country? A yes or no will suffice.


It was not since disclosed. It was disclosed at the time, and what he said was that since Israel was a miltirzed society, as all people over 18 must join the IDF in one capacity or another, they are not "civilians." Is it illegal to kill a soldier just because he/she does not have his/her uniform on?

That was the point. Make of that what you will, but get your facts straight.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 February 2006 08:00 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Long thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca