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   » the media   » Western Standard III

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Western Standard III
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 14 February 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post
From here
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 14 February 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All this brouhaha over the WS printing these cartoons is probably having EL cream his pants. He milked that "Librano" crap last summer for all it was worth, and now he will milk this. He is a publicity hound - nothing more or less.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 14 February 2006 03:15 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post
Well, some establishments like Chapters/Indigo are smart enough not to carry this rubbish. Funny how Ezra goes after the CBC for not carrying the story, but has not been very vocal as far as I know when a major distributor refuses to carry the magazine. Hmmm...I wonder why he is not saying Heather lacks courage? Would he be afraid they might drop the WS entirely?

http://tinyurl.com/9mnr6

quote:
Indigo Books and Music Inc., Canada's largest bookstore chain, is refusing to put the latest issue of the Western Standard on its shelves. Air Canada, which normally carries the Western Standard in its lounges and some flights, has also decided pull the issue.

From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Diane Demorney
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6183

posted 14 February 2006 04:50 PM      Profile for Diane Demorney   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is incredibly funny... Levant is always bragging about being on Air Canada - in their "business class" and Maple Leaf lounges... whereas Canadian Business magazine got turfed. As well, a small independent magazine store here (Macnally & Robertson I think) is also not stocking the WS this issue. ::::heee:::: I'm getting waaaay too much joy out of this.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 14 February 2006 05:08 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
McNally Robinson; they have stores in the prairie provinces and one in New York now.

CTV report:

quote:
...Meanwhile, a number of bookstores have decided not to run this month's edition of the Western Standard.

"We felt it was deemed offensive by Muslims and that it doesn't serve freedom of expression to flout Muslim sensibilities," Colleen Boschmann, manager of the McNally Robinson store in Calgary told the Canadian Press. McNally Robinson has three stores in Winnipeg and Saskatoon, but none will carry the magazine.

Boschmann said people who wish to view the cartoons can easily find them on the Internet, and putting the magazine on shelves would be an offensive and unnecessary gesture.

The magazine sells fewer than a dozen copies in the Calgary store.



From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 February 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
group warns of danger to troops

On the same day a Canadian Islamic group warned that reprinting cartoons of Muhammad could endanger Canadian troops overseas, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he regretted their publication.

- snip -

"I think the fact that people choose to reprint the cartoons could put our troops in danger," said council spokesperson Riad Saloojee.

"That's, I think, one of the reasons why major [Canadian] media outlets have been responsible and chosen not to do that."

More than 1,500 Canadians are serving in Afghanistan, a number that will grow to more than 2,200 within weeks. Eight Canadians have been killed while serving in the war-torn country in the past four years.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
TheStudent
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11410

posted 14 February 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for TheStudent        Edit/Delete Post
The decision by the WS to reprint the cartoons is blatant Islamophobia. The press may be theoretically free, but rights also come with responsibilities and one of thse is not to reprint stupid, hateful garbage that is deliberately targeting a minority group in society. All this bullshit about freedom of the press is a smokescreen to avoid people realizing that it is an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims that is driving forward the decision to publish these cartoons. I fully support Canadian Muslim groups in seeking to have hate crime charges preferred against any Canadian publication which reprints such hateful garbage.
From: Re-instate Audra Now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 14 February 2006 08:30 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
Congrats to Ezra for standing up for freedom and boo to the chickenshit pseduo-progressives.
From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 February 2006 08:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PM me your address. I'd like to send you some Klenex, so that you can wipe the spittle off your keybaord. I know it must be getting sloppy, and that will make it difficult for you to type. And we would oh so miss your brilliant interlocutions.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 14 February 2006 08:38 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll cheer Ezra "I'm a Stock-o-holic" Levant (self-confessed biggest fan of Stockwell Day) as soon as he starts publishing cartoons offensive to Christians, Jews, and others, or when he admits that he did this for publicity, not for principle.

Otherwise I intend to ignore his rag like I always do.


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 14 February 2006 10:19 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That should be interesting. Let's play a game called 6 degrees of separation. Rahim Jaffer's ex-aide (and former roommate) is Matthew Johnston. Matthew Johnston is one of the co-founders as well as a V.P. of Western Standard. The publisher of the Western Standard is Ezra Levant. Can anyone do better?

heh. that's only 3 degrees.

has any reporter interviewed Jaffer yet?


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 15 February 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by saskganesh:

heh. that's only 3 degrees.

has any reporter interviewed Jaffer yet?


Someone should, really. But make sure it's a face-to-face interview, just so's you know it's actually the real Rahim Jaffer.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 15 February 2006 10:05 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Imagine you're an Iraqi kid. You've seen more death and destruction than any adult should have to endure. You're traumatized, hungry perhaps, hoping for peace.

You see (or hear about) a cartoon that implies that you, because of your religion, are a terrorist and that nobody outside of Iraq is going to care if you get your head or your legs blown off because you're a legitimate target. You're a terrorist or potential terrorist who others fear and they're going to do whatever it takes to stop you.

That's the context of these cartoons. Real wars. Real occupying troops. Real torture chambers. Real people getting blown to pieces. The context is Fallujah which was razed to the ground. The context is the apartheid wall in Palestine. etc.

The White House's biggest concern is stemming the growing anti-war sentiment which increases everytime it's revealed that kids are getting blown up (not to forget of course US casualties). If you can desensitize people about "collateral damage" by implying that no one is innocent, then it's that much easier to keep doing what you're doing. Just look at the number of Palestinian children who were murdered in the Intifaddah.

The cartoon essentially excuses that violence by insinuating that anyone of the Moslem faith is a terrorist and therefore a legitimate target in the "war on terror".

It transfers the hatred which has been whipped up toward OBL and Saddam Hussein toward all Moslems, including children and provides a counter to the war crime charges being committed.

The cartoons are in support of war crimes. And no, it's not just this one issue. Brainwashing people is a cumulative process.

Are they illegal in Canada? I don't know. That's a separate but related question. Will publishing them put Canadian troops "in harms way"? I don't know - Afghanistan is a trap to start with.
They certainly won't endear the troops to the Afghani people but the combat troops should be withdrawn immediately anyway.

As for the moral relativism arguments - the guy complaining has said bad things himself; what about Pope jokes; etc. etc. they don't wash. It's not your house or city that's being bombed right now. It's not an academic argument in Iraq.

There's enough pro-war propoganda flying around which is totally legal. The cartoon with the turban bomb crosses the line. I haven't seen the others.

So to summarize, there's nothing innocuous about this nor can anything good come out of it. It's pro-war hysteria which uses hatred to justify mass murder.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Polunatic ]


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

posted 15 February 2006 10:19 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You see a cartoon that implies that you, because of your religion, are a terrorist and that nobody outside of Iraq is going to care if you get your head or your legs blown off because you're a legitinate target.

If you're this Iraqi kid and you're seeing this cartoon from a newspaper 3000 miles away, from 5 months ago, then it's going to be because someone — a friend or brother or religious leader — wants you to see them. Precisely so you'll get angry. And if you see this cartoon and think it innately implies that nobody cares if you get your legs blown off, chances are it's because that's what this friend or brother or Imam wants you to think.

Dude, do you really think a whole lot of Iraqi kids would be seeing these pictures if some adult weren't making damn sure that everyone who could possibly be whipped into a rage by them will get a chance? Do you think they sell the Jyllens-Posten in newspaper boxes in Iraq? Or the Western Standard?

quote:
The cartoons are in support of war crimes.

Balderdash.

quote:
Are they illegal in Canada?

No.

quote:
I don't know.

Now you do. Perhaps you can stop talking about them like a hate crime now that you know they aren't.

quote:
It's pro-war hysteria which uses hatred to justify mass murder.

No, it's a cartoon. It's not "justifying" squat. And getting yourself all torqued up about them does not change that, nor does all the aggreived and exaggerated rhetoric you can come up with.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 15 February 2006 10:28 AM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Canadian Socialist:
All this brouhaha over the WS printing these cartoons is probably having EL cream his pants. He milked that "Librano" crap last summer for all it was worth, and now he will milk this. He is a publicity hound - nothing more or less.

So can we please stop talking about the little pisher?


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 15 February 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps you can stop talking about them like a hate crime now that you know they aren't.
I said over and over that while they may not be hate crimes according to Canadian law but that they are HATEFUL. You don't agree.

And if you were in pre-war Nazi Germany, I suppose you would make the same freedom of speech arguments about anti-Semitic cartoons that helped lay the ground for the death camps and say that if Jews were worked up about those cartoons, it's only because leaders in the Jewish community were working them up.

Or would you?


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

posted 15 February 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually that kind of apologia was rampant.

Should it be considered that the Nazi pogrom against the Jews was not predicated soley on the most virulent views of the most reactionary elements of society, but allowed by tacit acceptance of the majority, within the context of more mild and socially accepted latent prejudices, which were seemingly more benign.


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

posted 15 February 2006 11:58 AM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, those cartoons were merely satire and anyone who thought they were hateful didn't understand Nazi humour.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 15 February 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And if you were in pre-war Nazi Germany, I suppose you would make the same freedom of speech arguments about anti-Semitic cartoons that helped lay the ground for the death camps and say that if Jews were worked up about those cartoons, it's only because leaders in the Jewish community were working them up.

Those cartoons were clearly about Jewish people, not Moses or Abraham. Big difference. The cartoons were also aimed at inspiring direct hatred against Jewish people.

No one has been able to supply a shred of evidence, a single shred, that the Danish newspaper printed any of the 12 cartoons as a means of fomenting disgust with or hatred for Muslim citizens of Denmark or Muslims anywhere and as way of fomenting violence against them. The same applies to the dozens of European newspapers, INCLUDING LEFTWING ANTI-WAR PAPERS in places like France, that reprinted the material, or Le Devoir in Montreal.

That is the distinction that our laws make. It is an important, no it is a key, distinction.

Everyone here agrees the cartoons, actually 2 out of the 12, were in very bad taste (the virgins in heaven and the bomb headdress cartoon). No one likes Ezra levant in particular.

The disagreement is over the application of the criminal law. Far worse material has been acquitted by our courts. I have pointed in another thread to the 1951 Supreme Court Boucher decision about a Jehovah's witness pamphlet that, among other things, called the Catholic Church under Duplessis evil and an enemy of God. At the time, the clear meaning of the "Church" meant all members, i.e. all Catholics, not just the Roman Curia in the Vatican. The pamphlet didn't attack or riducule Jesus, or a specific Christian leader, or the Virgin Mary. The entire Church, meaning every single Catholic was the target. It was a seditious libe case. The Supreme Court acquitted Boucher and the case is still considered and cited as valid precedent in hate literature cases to this very day. No one in their right mind could possibly think the pamphlet fostered violence or hatred against Catholics, DESPITE ITS EXPLICIT WORDS. Now turn to the bomb turban cartoon - no words, no evidence at all from the paper or cartoonist it was intended to foment hatred as clearly defined in European Union human rights and/or Canadian law. Sorry, the argument does not succeed.

So, big distinction between Mohammed and the Nazi Evil jew cartoons.

And even if Levant is a sensation-seeker, how does that impact the debate about the protection of freedom to discuss, criticize, attack, ridicule or mock religious symbols, doctrines or figures? How come no one is furiously attacking the anti-war Le Devoir or Libération or Charlie Hebdo or the centrist Die Welt? They all reprinted parts or all of the relevant material. Freedom only for those papers I agree with? I don't think so.

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


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Or would you?

Probably not, because it wasn't necessary for someone to take these images and flog them around to various Jewish community leaders to whip up reaction. Also, Jews were being dragged out of their homes and businesses for mob assaults, anti-semitic graffiti was being scrawled on their homes, windows were broken, businesses burned, etc.

None of that is or was happening in Denmark.

Face it. If nobody had decided to exploit these cartoons for their own benefit, we would have had some angry moderate Muslims in Denmark and that's it.

But someone decided it would be a good idea to take the cartoons to the Middle East, after adding in a few that were never in the newspaper in the first place, and rub them in people's faces until they got angry.

That's not the fault of the newspaper. That's the fault of the guy who thought that his Muslim brethren weren't outraged enough and set out to make sure they were. It took 5 months, but now here we are. Now there are Muslims in Syria rioting in the streets over cartoons published on another continent nearly half a year ago. And no, the United States isn't occupying Syria, and neither is Denmark, so no, it's not that.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 15 February 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Nazi cartoon argument is a red herring. There were anti-Semitic cartoons throughout Europe for numerous decades prior to the Nazis taking power. To assume that the Nazis took power on the basis of their cartooning, or would have been prevented from taking power had their cartoons been banned, is ahistorical. The conditions in, and historical experience of, Germany were responsible for that. In addition, the cartoons were printed in their propaganda, not in mainstream newspapers.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 15 February 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Mr. Magoo.

And there is a backlash right now, right now, within the Danish Muslim community against the foolish extremists in their midst who travelled to the Middle East and for months tried to stir up a violent reaction by goading people and by mixing in carttons that were never used in the Danish paper in question.

We would all be having a productive dialogue between Moslems and non-Moslems right now had it not been for the extreme right Islamic fundamentalist forces.


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
None of that is or was happening in Denmark.
What about in Iraq?

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

posted 15 February 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:

Those cartoons were clearly about Jewish people, not Moses or Abraham. Big difference. The cartoons were also aimed at inspiring direct hatred against Jewish people.


Ridiculous, as usual, the evidence that Muslim people are the target of the cartoons is the very fact that they upset to a greater or lesser exent almost every Muslim who has bothered to comment. This is the case whatever Flemming Rose intended. Muslims, as a whole, feel impugned.

As to the idea that the Jylland-Posten's "intent" is relevant, it isn't. The Swastika did not start out as a rallying symbol of anti-semitic hate, it was appropriated as such, just as these cartoon are being used as a leverage point to identify sailent and innate "social" devide, whereby "our" values, generally symbolized as by "freedom of speech" are opposed to what is posed as "their" antithetical and alien view symbolized by "their" attack upon our superior values.

Don't pretend to understand what I just said. Please.


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:15 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What about in Iraq?

What about it? If reaction were limited to Iraq and Afghanistan, I might say you're onto something. But it's not, and you're not.

quote:
We would all be having a productive dialogue between Moslems and non-Moslems right now had it not been for the extreme right Islamic fundamentalist forces.

And Cueball.


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball.

Intent is everything.

It is the very heart of the debate over hate literature and has been for decades in this and in most European jurisdictions.

Once again, your ideology prevents your understanding of commonly recognized fundamental legal and constitutional principles.

Thank God people like you do not make our laws.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually Magoo I am the one who gets the PM's from the people of Muslim extraction whom occassionally come here to look in on what is generally a hostile and arrogant ethnocentric message board. Not you.

Most of them are female and they feel extremely alienated by your pig-headed dismissive bullshit, usually couched as some kind of defence of their rights.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
Cueball.

Intent is everything.


Intent is not everything. Go look up criminal negligence.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
cogito ergo sum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10610

posted 15 February 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for cogito ergo sum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Actually Magoo I am the one who gets the PM's from the Muslim people whom occassionally come here to look in on what is generally a hostile and arrogant ethnocentric message board. Not you.


Since when is Islam an ethnicity? I thought we had settled that religion does not equal ethnicity.

From: not behind you, honest! | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 12:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh pleas don't pester me with your Socrates droppings. This is a message board. I am not writing a fucking thesis.

BTW, that is the essential arguement made in the 1964 PLO charter regarding Jews and Palestine, just so you know. Judaism is a religion, yadda yadda. I happen to agree but do I need to dot every single "i" for you just that you won't intercede with your "cleverness?"

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually Magoo I am the one who gets the PM's from the Muslim people whom occassionally come here to look in on what is generally a hostile and arrogant ethnocentric message board. Not you.

Ooh. You have fan club and I don't. That's super.


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yup dailogue Magoo. The one you aren't having because you insist on casting everything in your terms.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 15 February 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's not the fault of the newspaper. That's the fault of the guy who thought that his Muslim brethren weren't outraged enough and set out to make sure they were. It took 5 months, but now here we are. Now there are Muslims in Syria rioting in the streets over cartoons published on another continent nearly half a year ago. And no, the United States isn't occupying Syria, and neither is Denmark, so no, it's not that.

One guy. One guy from Denmark, a country most people in the Middle East probably haven't spent five seconds thinking about in their entire lives, is able to whip up an international furore entirely out of thin air, thru nothing but his own superhuman powers of manipulation. Thru what, mass hypnosis, mind control beams? And Magoo, the self-appointed context police, insists that it has nothing to do -- nothing at all! -- with the broader trends in the region. History has been wiped clean, the world began anew in September with the publication of the cartoons, all previous events are rendered completely irrelevant.

Whatever.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 February 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yup dailogue Magoo. The one you aren't having because you insist on casting everything in your terms.

I'm not here to recruit pen-pals. I'd rather discuss things in the open.

quote:
thru nothing but his own superhuman powers of manipulation.

No, by engaging the Worldwide Fundamentalist Mullah Network, who were more than happy to assist.

quote:
And Magoo, the self-appointed context police, insists that it has nothing to do -- nothing at all! -- with the broader trends in the region.

Well, that's what the protesters themselves seem to be saying. If you don't think they're intelligent enough to know what they're protesting, have the courage of your convictions and say so. But don't ride me for believing them over you.


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

posted 15 February 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But you don't "discuss" things.

You repeat the same assertions over and over again without regard to what others think and say. But given this it is logical to conclude that I am only really pointing this out to myself, as part of my amazed quest to try and understand how someone could be so pugnaciously obtuse, for no apparent reason than to be annoying.


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

posted 15 February 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So's your mother.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 15 February 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That dork Levant was on The Current along with the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, discussing their different decisions to publish or not. Levant was as mouthy and obnoxious as ever, and I spent most of the time really, really wanting to kick him downstairs. Toward the end his vicious racism came out and any humour in the situation evaporated.

They did manage to shut him up for a few seconds every so often and the other guy and Anna Maria Tremonti both got in some good shots at him. He just kept on repeating the same old blah, blah, Piss Christ, blah, blah, all the other newspapers are cowards, blah, blah I've hired extra security, blah blah.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 01:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As an example. The repetion of the idea that this issue is strictly to be defined by the cartoons, despite the fact tha numerous people have brought forward voluminous evidence including informed opinion, statements by muslims, and the historical record, to suppor the opposite view, you bligthly go on disregarding everything -- even when people of Muslim extraction come and tell you exactly that.

Is it necessary to repeat this evidence day after day after day. Not at all. There is no point to trying.

Above all, you miss the sailent point, that in an issue involving what it is that Muslim feel, what counts is not how you construe events, but what they say, and that this disregard for their opinion and feeling is the essential fact that lies at the heart of the problem.

Your ignorance is the perfect parrallel to the ignorance of Flemming Rose.

It is not that you can not understand, but that you simply do not want to.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 15 February 2006 01:11 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Intent is not everything.

Intent is everything. It is there in black and white in the criminal code. It is also central to the European jurisprudence. Maybe one day, you will take your head out of your dogma and actually read some of the facts at the heart of the dicussion of what the law ACTUALLY says and how the law has ACTUALLY been interpreted and applied by our democratic courts here in Canada and in many other secular democratic countries.

But then pontificating from within the certitudes of dogma is so much more fun than having to deal with silly little inconveniences like the actual facts and the actual texts of the law and judicial rulings.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 15 February 2006 01:12 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
Actually the Danes must have been occupying all of the Middle East...those Vikings were at it again. Otherwise, as one commentator observed, where did all those burning Danish flags come from in those 'spontaneous' demonstrations....'quick, let's run into the flag store and buy a half dozen Danish flags.'

'Help, help he's going to show me a cartoon. Help, help'


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 February 2006 01:19 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As an example. The repetion of the idea that this issue is strictly to be defined by the cartoons, despite the fact tha numerous people have brought forward voluminous evidence including informed opinion, statements by muslims, and the historical record, to suppor the opposite view, you bligthly go on disregarding everything -- even when people of Muslim extraction come and tell you exactly that.

If you don't trust the protesters themselves to know what they're protesting, you should probably take it up with them. But when they say "we're out here protesting these cartoons" I believe them.

When someone sitting in an armchair in North America, Muslim or not, says "Oh, no, that's not what this is really about", I guess I tend to stick to believing the people who are actually there.

If you think that the people saying they're protesting the cartoons are lying, say so. If you think they're too ignorant to know what they're protesting without your help, say so.

Don't be mealymouthed about it; you obviously know better than they do.


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

posted 15 February 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:

Intent is everything. It is there in black and white in the criminal code. It is also central to the European jurisprudence. Maybe one day, you will take your head out of your dogma and actually read some of the facts at the heart of the dicussion of what the law ACTUALLY says and how the law has ACTUALLY been interpreted and applied by our democratic courts here in Canada and in many other secular democratic countries.

But then pontificating from within the certitudes of dogma is so much more fun than having to deal with silly little inconveniences like the actual facts and the actual texts of the law and judicial rulings.


No. If someone through an act of ommission causes the death of someone they can be charged with criminal negligence. This is the case wether or not they intended to do harm.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 15 February 2006 01:25 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Don't be mealymouthed about it; you obviously know better than they do.

Oh, some people on Babble obviously know better than everyone else. They even know what the motives are of people they've never interviewed, met or read.

Dogma vs. facts? Dad's a litigation lawyer, older brother's a litigation lawyer, baby sis is a Crown prosecutor, other baby sis is a forensic accountant, other bro is an airline pilot and trainer, I have background in library and legal research: I kind of like the facts Mr. Magoo and I sense that you do too. Conflict between ideology and evidence? In my family, the unanimous opinion is go with the facts, always. Let the prisoners of dogmatic thinking twist themselves in knots.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 15 February 2006 01:27 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
No. If someone through an act of ommission causes the death of someone they can be charged with criminal negligence. This is the case wether or not they intended to do harm.

Are you intentionally trying to be cute or dumb?

The debate in the dozens of threads on this issue is about the hate literature provisions of the Criminal Code. Intent is at the core.

Criminal negligence... How about intellectual negligence?

Thank God people like you don't make or interpret our laws. Half of Babble would be in jail for "offending" someone else.

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


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

If you don't trust the protesters themselves to know what they're protesting, you should probably take it up with them. But when they say "we're out here protesting these cartoons" I believe them.

When someone sitting in an armchair in North America, Muslim or not, says "Oh, no, that's not what this is really about", I guess I tend to stick to believing the people who are actually there.

If you think that the people saying they're protesting the cartoons are lying, say so. If you think they're too ignorant to know what they're protesting without your help, say so.

Don't be mealymouthed about it; you obviously know better than they do.


Precisely Magoo. And now we are back where we started with you asserting that no protestors have said that "it is not just about the cartoons," when in fact Muslim people whom are prostesting the cartoons have come and told you that the reason that they are protesting is not just because of the cartoons.

In fact protesting while they speak to you.

And they have said this directly to you, in response to your bullshit. They say: "This is not just protesting the cartoons, but the whole littany of things that it symbolizes and means, and as a result of the long history, and ongoing European interference in our affairs," and you say, "No you are not."

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 February 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Remember how angry African Americans were when Rodney King's attackers were let off?
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 15 February 2006 01:40 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you're this Iraqi kid and you're seeing this cartoon from a newspaper 3000 miles away, from 5 months ago, then it's going to be because someone — a friend or brother or religious leader — wants you to see them. Precisely so you'll get angry. And if you see this cartoon and think it innately implies that nobody cares if you get your legs blown off, chances are it's because that's what this friend or brother or Imam wants you to think.
People try to shield their children from violence, drugs, sex etc., without success Magoo. I am sure that these kids have some access to media. But let us assume that you are correct and that someone is telling them about these things with the intent of provoking them. This is precisely what we are saying is wrong about the WS reprinting these cartoons in the first place. It is immoral and irresponsible to spread hatred like this. The intent is wrong and it should be clear.

From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 15 February 2006 01:41 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
CM2: The debate in the dozens of threads on this issue is about the hate literature provisions of the Criminal Code. Intent is at the core.
OK, so if a hatemonger asserts successfully that he didn't intend to do harm then do Canadian "hate laws" not apply? Seems like pretty worthless laws in that case. Perhaps that's why there are so few convictions.

By the way, what's wrong with just not publishing the damn cartoons, whatever the law?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 15 February 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cartman:
People try to shield their children from violence, drugs, sex etc., without success Magoo. I am sure that these kids have some access to media. But let us assume that you are correct and that someone is telling them about these things with the intent of provoking them. This is precisely what we are saying is wrong about the WS reprinting these cartoons in the first place. It is immoral and irresponsible to spread hatred like this. The intent is wrong and it should be clear.

Now these cartoons should definitely be shown on all newscasts and in the mainsteam newpapers. Any cartoon so powereful as scar the psyche of kids on the streets of Baghdad should be exposed for what it is...a menace to the world like Nuclear weapons or AIDS. don't hide them in the closet but meet the challenge dead on before this evil called 'the cartoon' engulfs the whole world.

Our parents were right and our society was warped by us kids reading all those comic books. Next thing you know women will demand the vote and black folks will be wanting to move into theneighborhood.

'Run, help, run, he has a cartoon!!!'


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 15 February 2006 02:04 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
N. Beltov, I would not publish them, most of us here would not publish them, most people elsewhere would not publish them (though the consensus sees to be that only 2 or perhaps 3 were in very bad taste) but there has to be a way to publish them somewhere as part of the discussion of what the events are about.

But once they're Out there, what does one do?

Is it really about this group of cartoons? Or is it part of a political offensive worldwide against the right to speak openly (respectfully one assumes) of religious dogma? People are aware I assume that there are already effoerts afoot at the UN to negotiate some itnernational "anti-blasphemy" convention to make it illegal to "blaspheize" against any religious creed. What te hell does that mean? Who decides? Where does that leave anyone critical of religion.

Also, the Russian state prosecutor is thinking of launching proceedings against a paper in Volgograd that had a cartoon depicting Jesus Christ, the prophet Muhammad, Moses and Buddha watching TV pictures of two groups of people preparing for a fight. The caption under read: "We did not teach them to do that..." Seems kind of respectful of religious understanding, no? Doesn't matter, things we all would agree are as far removed as possible from negative portrayls risk being swept up in the censorship being supported in certain religious circles.

And though difficult, it has been possible to prove intent in some hate law cases.

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


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 15 February 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
If you're this Iraqi kid and you're seeing this cartoon from a newspaper 3000 miles away, from 5 months ago, then it's going to be because someone — a friend or brother or religious leader — wants you to see them. Precisely so you'll get angry. And if you see this cartoon and think it innately implies that nobody cares if you get your legs blown off, chances are it's because that's what this friend or brother or Imam wants you to think.

Dude, do you really think a whole lot of Iraqi kids would be seeing these pictures if some adult weren't making damn sure that everyone who could possibly be whipped into a rage by them will get a chance? Do you think they sell the Jyllens-Posten in newspaper boxes in Iraq? Or the Western Standard?


Aaarggghhh... the ignorance! Where do I start? You really think an Iraqi kid isn't going to see the cartoon unless a relative/friend deliberately makes a point of showing the cartoon to the kid? Do you think that this is how Muslims raise their kids? Teach them how to hate everytime there is a reason to be angry? Do you not think that Muslim kids read newspapers? Do you not think the press in Iraq or anywhere else in the Arab/Muslim world would not report what the Jyllands-Posten had published? People living in heavily-concentrated Muslim regions in the world actually print newspapers that report events going on around the world. They don't need the Jyllands-Posten mailed to them. But why don't we blame the Muslims for spreading the feelings of hatred started by non-muslims, anyway? Sounds perfectly logical to me.

p.s: And yea, I realize the protest against the cartoons didn't gain momentum till almost 5 months later. So, it may not have been published in Arab newspapers till that much later. But it didn't need to gain that much momentum till so many months later because Muslims were spending all that time trying to get an apology diplomatically.


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 February 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You really think an Iraqi kid isn't going to see the cartoon unless a relative/friend deliberately makes a point of showing the cartoon to the kid?

Uh, where are they seeing them then? Do they subscribe to a newspaper that published them?

If not, then someone is making sure they see them.

quote:
People living in heavily-concentrated Muslim regions in the world actually print newspapers that report events going on around the world.

So you're saying that Iraqi newspapers printed the cartoons?? If so then I'll concede your point. But my understanding is that they didn't and wouldn't.

quote:
But why don't we blame the Muslims for spreading the feelings of hatred started by non-muslims, anyway? Sounds perfectly logical to me.

I wouldn't blame "the" Muslims. But I can sure as hell lay a bit of blame at the feet of whoever decided it was a good idea to throw a few extra cartoons in there for good measure.

I've seen it suggested in other related threads that Jyllens-Posten "should have known" what printing the pictures would do in Denmark. Is there some reason that the self-motivated individual who decided to bring them to the Middle East and stir up some emotions there shouldn't have also known then?

quote:
But it didn't need to gain that much momentum till so many months later because Muslims were spending all that time trying to get an apology diplomatically.

And when that fails, get a riot started in Syria. If a democratic government refuses to apologize for the actions of a free press, burn a few embassies and amp up the demands.


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

posted 15 February 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you're this Iraqi kid and you're seeing this cartoon from a newspaper 3000 miles away, from 5 months ago, then it's going to be because someone — a friend or brother or religious leader — wants you to see them.
So as long as you're pretty sure that people won't see the hateful, offensive cartoons, it's ok?
quote:
To assume that the Nazis took power on the basis of their cartooning, or would have been prevented from taking power had their cartoons been banned, is ahistorical.
I never suggested that - only that it was ONE factor in a number of factors which helped to paint Jews and others as sub-human in order to carry out the "Final Solution".
quote:
the Danes must have been occupying all of the Middle East
Do you not think that ultra-right wingers network across borders?
quote:
Next thing you know women will demand the vote and black folks will be wanting to move into the neighborhood.
And when people write hateful things in order to stop that, you can defend their right to free speech.
quote:
The cartoons were also aimed at inspiring direct hatred against Jewish people.
And these cartoons were only meant to have people laugh at Moslem people?

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ephemeral
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8881

posted 15 February 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for ephemeral     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
So you're saying that Iraqi newspapers printed the cartoons?? If so then I'll concede your point. But my understanding is that they didn't and wouldn't.

Sorry, I wasn't absolutely 100% clear. Muslim publications wouldn't have printed the cartoons themselves, but they would have printed about them.

Oh yea, and let's not forget about the thing called the internet. I don't know about Iraq, but I do know other regions in the Middle East where Internet access is very easily available.

So, do you still think that kids in the Middle East wouldn't know about the cartoons unless their parents told them about it?


From: under a bridge with a laptop | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 February 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So as long as you're pretty sure that people won't see the hateful, offensive cartoons, it's ok?

I'm suggesting that if someone hadn't decided to see what kind of unrest could be stirred up, no Iraqi kid was going to have any cartoons shoved in his face. That some Iraqi kid is seeing these cartoons is a result of someone making the choice to whip up a reaction to some 5 month old cartoons published on another continent.

quote:
Do you not think that ultra-right wingers network across borders?

I think the point was "Uh, if this is all about people's righteous anger, then where, exactly, did all these Danish flags come from??"

I mean, do most Muslims have a Danish flag in their closet just waiting to burn? Or is it possible that maybe someone went around distributing flags for the photo-op?

It's not like I have a Syrian flag just waiting in my closet, in case Syria does something I find offensive.

ed'd to add:

quote:
when in fact Muslim people whom are prostesting the cartoons have come and told you that the reason that they are protesting is not just because of the cartoons.

Maybe you want to reread that.

quote:
They say: "This is not just protesting the cartoons, but the whole littany of things that it symbolizes and means, and as a result of the long history, and ongoing European interference in our affairs," and you say, "No you are not."

Well let's try a different example.

Suppose crowds in Chile were setting fires in the streets to protest someone defacing a statue of Jesus. They've got signs decrying the defacing, they're telling the press how angry they are about the defacing, they're demanding reparations for this defacing, etc.

Then, here in Canada, a week later, a few babblers of Chilean origin say "Oh, no! It's not about some statue. It's about Free Trade!"

Who would we believe? My money is on us believing the Chileans. The ones who are actually there, not the ones watching it on CNN.

That doesn't mean that these babblers can't be angry that a statue was defaced. And it doesn't mean they can't be angry about Free Trade too. But tell me again why I should be focusing on them, and not the Chileans? Then tell me again why I should be ignoring all the Muslims in the ME who are saying they're angry about the cartoons.

quote:
So, do you still think that kids in the Middle East wouldn't know about the cartoons unless their parents told them about it?

I'm not trying to prolong this, but you're suggesting lots of kids in Iraq (the original reference was to a kid in Iraq) are going to have Internet service?

That someone who does have Internet service might print them and distribute them I could believe. That's actually what I was suggesting in the first place.

But no, the idea that some Iraqi kid was going to get up in the morning, walk out the door, and be confronted by these cartoons is ridiculous, unless of course someone wanted him or her to. And that someone would not be Jyllens-Posten.

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


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

posted 15 February 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And when that fails, get a riot started in Syria. If a democratic government refuses to apologize for the actions of a free press, burn a few embassies and amp up the demands

It wasn't the same people or groups who did those things.

In Egypt, as a way to compete with the rising popularity of the Moslem Brotherhood, the corrupt repressive government fomented (allowed others, encouraged others to foment) violence.

In Syria, there are no spontaneous demos. The violent riots were no doubt orchestrated by the secret police. Nothing moves in that little torture state without it being organized from above. Syria is being investigated by the UN for its role in killing the Prime Minister or Lebanon. Guess who sits on the UN Security Council right about the time the final report is delivered? A small European country whose first letter is D.

Riots in Lebanon - guess which little torture state is being officially accused by Lebanon of fmentinhg the riots? It lies next to Lebanon and begins with the letter S...

Iran - fomented by you know who. Iran is about to be dragged in front of the UN Security Council over its possible atomic weapons program. Who wll be sitting on the Council right about the time any recommendations for sanctions are delivered? A little European country whose first letter...

Etc.

Pakistan violence - extreme right parties whose real political target are the repressive modernizers around the current President.

etc.

The Globe and Mail had a front page story a while ago with the Danish Moslem leader who traveled to the Middle East to "get attention" for the cartoons. Boy is he effing sorry he ever got on that plane, according to the paper.

etc.

The violent protests during the Rushdie affair of 1988 and 1989, also fomented by the rising fascist fundamentalist movements in Pakistan and manipulated by the religious dictatorship in Iran were practice runs fro what we are now witnessing.

It is an interesting exercise to go back to the Rushdie archives and read the statements of radical protesters and then of moderate protestors. Almost exactly the sae wording. The radicals say: kill everyone who disagrees with me. Many of the moderates say: we respect freedom of speech but it should be a crime to say anything I disagree with at all about my religion. Many Western progressives say: we have to understand the anger and violence of the fascists.

OK, understand, sure. But give in?


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are no flag shops in Beriut, as we know, because Beriut is not the most mutlticultural city in the world, Toronto is the most multicultural city in the world.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FYI: CM2, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1904, it had maintained a fairly strong level of popularity over the period, rising an falling, kinda like the Liberals. It is not some newly concieved epicenter of evil Islamic thought. Just because you found out about it, doesn't mean it didn't exist before that time, but Kudos to you for bothering to find out the names of stuff.

The rest of the post reads like the guy from Whatreallyhappened.com trying to pin 9/11 on Mossad.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 15 February 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, you're actually kind of funny at times. Or is it just that you are lazy?

Spontaneous demos in Syria? Yeah, right!

Lebanon: official government complaint to the UN about Syrian secret service involvement in the riots

Pakistan: read progressive Pakistani reporters who know about the indigenous fascist movements in that country

The Danish Moslem activist who now regrets his actions: you can easily find the interview referred to and many others.

etc.

The European press is full of articles by investigatve reporters and moderate and progressive Moslems who have documented the manipulations (actually, the fomenting) of events by fundamentalist parties and/or governments in different countries as part of various domestic political maneuvrings.

You have twisted yourself into knots based on some ideology or other. Maybe some facts would help.

[ 15 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 15 February 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Critical Mass, what are your sources? How about some citations?
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 03:26 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think rather than responding to your obnoxious tendency to presume that you are in anyway speaking to my views on this subject, I will find an earlier post where I summarized my views on the realities and distortions being bandied about by various vested interests. Let me be clear, just because I believe that there have been deliberate distortions and politicking going on in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, I am not so gullible as to swallow the hogwash being presented by the side you so avidly defend.

I'll be back, with my previous text.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 15 February 2006 03:37 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Critical Mass, when one person calls another person "a Jew-hater" in public, are they committing a hate crime, or slander?

Today I think Ezra Levant called a woman "a Jew-hater" on CBC radio. They played a taped comment by her about the cartoons being published, and Levant said she is the vice president of the organization of which the president, I believe, said something about all Israelis over 18 being legitimate targets for the Palestinians (Levant said he said "all Jews over 18... in Israel" but I question his spin). And I think Levant said of the woman that he was not going to be lectured on ethics by "a Jew-hater". I'm pretty sure he did not reference anything that she had said that would demonstrate her to be "a Jew-hater".

So could she sue him?

Edit The Current - see Part 3

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 03:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think that there is a relative context to this in the form that the major media, such as Jylland-Posten, were not accesible to the people making the complaint, nor did it seem like they had access to the governement as a means of expressing their freedom of speech, so one could see how some people might get frustrated with that, as it really comes across as freedom of speech for some people, and not others, and they might begin to look outside of the normal channels, and do such things as try to bring international attention to the issue.

And then this, people seem to have a problem with this. Isn't it the case that people whom feel that they are under attack, and being repressed in some way often seek to bring international attention to issues of local concern. It is in fact the explicit guideline of Amnesty International to only operate on international lines, and never locally, for obvious reasons.

But for some reason, people seem upset that Muslims appealed to outside Muslim governements for assistance. I really don't see why people have a problem with this, and yes, as is usually the case, as the story expanded and got more and more international attention the story got changed and inflated, which is something one often sees in cases where a local story gets into the hands of foreign interests with their own agendas. Is that so unusual?

I remeber all the uproar about the incubators in Kuwait in 1990, and also some of the things that were said about Nicaragua in the eighties by the US. We see such distortions being made about Venuzuela today, I think as well.

But does this distortion absolutely mean that the local complaint does not have an origin, and a point and is representative of some honest greviance? I certainly don't think Saddams invasion of Kuwait proceeded without atrocity, even though the US lied about some of the incidents. I know for a fact that many of the greviances that the Misquito Indians of the regions around Bluefields held against the Sandanistas were quite legitimate, and I don't think that Mr. Chavez is spic and span all the time.

So, what am I left with? I am still left with central axis of this whole thing being the publication of some really ugly anti-Muslim cartoons, and the intransigence of the Danish governement in not creating a proper means for the Danish Imams to properly express their views about what they rightly saw as an offensive attack upon Danish Muslims.

Or even listen to them, or support them in any way shape or form. I seems very much that the Danish goverment explicitly rejected them, and refused to find a way to molify the ire of the particular part of its constituency.



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 15 February 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post
WS probably has the right to publish these cartoons. Done, now let us move along.

Let us assume that Ezra and the rest of the decision-makers at WS do actually have our best interests at heart (stop laughing for a minute). Let us assume that these wonderful, noble folks have so much journalistic integrity, that they are willing to sacrifice it all, even their lives, so that we can all be more knowledgeable. This is highly unlikely, but if this was the case, what could be the result for everyone who looks at the cartoons? Speculate as did the WS.

a) Without a considerable knowledge of Islam, will people (including the WS staff) have the ability to adequately interpret the offence? If the WS understands why it is offensive, why repeat the mistake? Before this, I did not know such a depiction would be offensive. Did you?

b) If simply showing the character is the problem, then there is no use in reprinting the cartoons to understand why they are offensive. Discuss it, do not show it. That would be like me saying that leaving a flaming bag of shit on your doorstep is rude and then doing so to prove it. This is the WS's explanation.

c) If people do look at the cartoons and do not understand what is the big deal (which I suspect will most often be the case), what will they think when they see the reaction to the offence? I suspect that they will either think most/many people from this part of the world are nuts or religious freaks or led by the former.

My point is to try and tease out the motives of the WS decision-makers. I do not believe they are noble enough to risk their lives to spread knowledge, I suspect that they are spreading hate to sell magazines.

Here are the CBC's reasons for not showing the cartoons.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cartman ]


From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 15 February 2006 03:56 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WS's vile opinions are not just about Muslims.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 15 February 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cartman:

My point is to try and tease out the motives of the WS decision-makers. I do not believe they are noble enough to risk their lives to spread knowledge, I suspect that they are spreading hate to sell magazines.

CBC's reasons for not showing the cartoons.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Cartman ]


I'd rather try to understand the bizarre motives of pseudo-progresives who are quick to roll over and defend relgious bigots and zealots and eagerly abandon those practicing free expresion. My guess is these pseudo-progressives are so wrapped in knots trying to be politically correct that they have gone full circle and are now grasping at straws to defend the tyranny of censorship.


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 15 February 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know, that's just rude. You really should share your drugs with the rest of us. That way we too could see all those hordes of babblers "defending the tyranny of censorship". Said babblers being conspicuously absent outside of your psychedelic hallucinations.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 February 2006 05:17 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That some Iraqi kid is seeing these cartoons is a result of someone making the choice to whip up a reaction to some 5 month old cartoons published on another continent.

You sure read funny newspapers. Every press report I've seen says it was the result of the efforts of some very offended Danish Moslems demanding an apology from a culturally insensitive - and infamously anti-immigrant -Danish newspaper. I suppose they should've just shut up and taken the insult, lest some kid in Iraq get the crazy idea that European rightwingers hate muslims.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 15 February 2006 05:23 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'd rather try to understand the bizarre motives of pseudo-progresives who are quick to roll over and defend relgious bigots and zealots and eagerly abandon those practicing free expresion.
You keep referring to "pseudo-progressives", but you never explain what this is exactly or who they are precisely. Perhaps we could then respond to your question about their motives. Likewise, who are the bigots and zealots? I am very interested in your answer. I think you might be exaggerating somewhat.

quote:
My guess is these pseudo-progressives are so wrapped in knots trying to be politically correct that they have gone full circle and are now grasping at straws to defend the tyranny of censorship.
"Tyranny of censorship"?

Now this requires explanation. After all, we are talking about cartoons that were published, not cartoons that were kept from being published. This is not about free speech and it is most certainly not about censorship. Judging by the number of posts and threads on the topic, it appears as though we can freely discuss the matter.

From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 15 February 2006 06:41 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one her is supporting state intreference with the Western Standard's decision to publish these racist cartoons.

Racism is legal.

What we do say is that publishing racist cartoons is a stupid thing to do, since it achieves nothing.

Ezra what'shsiname has no judgment at all. It's all about getting his face in the papers.


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

posted 15 February 2006 06:58 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of us are actually (at least I am) questioning whether they go beyond racism into the realm of hatred (which is also legal up to a certain point).

Some think they're hateful. Others think they're satire.

Some people support Canada's hate laws. Others see them as an infringement on free speech.

Some think they should be published far and wide so they can be debated. Others think that shows poor judgement.

Some think that the cartoons target Moslems. Others think that the reactions target Europeans and liberal values of free speech.

Some think that analogies can be made to other times in history when hateful cartoons were used as ONE of the tools to dehumanize and then slaughter people. Others think that's a red herring.

I don't think there's much that anyone agrees with in this debate.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
asterlake
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11892

posted 15 February 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for asterlake        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
No one her is supporting state intreference with the Western Standard's decision to publish these racist cartoons.

Racism is legal.

What we do say is that publishing racist cartoons is a stupid thing to do, since it achieves nothing.

Ezra what'shsiname has no judgment at all. It's all about getting his face in the papers.


What race? Asian Muslims? Black muslims? White Muslims?

Islam is an ideology and not a race. It's composed of homophobes and male chauvinism across the racial spectrum. A black Muslim woman in Uganda is delegated to second clas status as well as the semetic woman in Saudi Arabia. Gays in both societies are equally oppresed...there is no colour barrier that protects them from oppression.


From: Exshaw | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 15 February 2006 07:05 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Islam is an ideology and not a race.
Islam is a religion - one of the world's major religions.
quote:
It's composed of homophobes and male chauvinism across the racial spectrum.
IMHO, your next sentence comes close to violating rabble's own policies.

From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 15 February 2006 07:07 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Islam is an ideology"

Perfect.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 February 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:
IMHO, your next sentence comes close to violating rabble's own policies.

Seconded. audra at rabble dot com


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 07:56 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

Seconded. audra at rabble dot com


What does "audra at rabble dot com" mean. Are you emailing a complaint? You posted the same thing about an hour ago when I simply reposted a comment made by Cueball that I found offensive (you called it stalking).

BTW, Canada's composed of homophobes and male chauvinism, islam is too - it's a fact. Do stating facts ever violate babble policy? (non-rhetorical question) Dare I say islam is composed of a greater percentage of homophobes and male chauvinists than Canada - do I need to reference an opinion poll or can we just take "common-sense-notice" of it?


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 February 2006 08:18 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:

What does "audra at rabble dot com" mean. Are you emailing a complaint? You posted the same thing about an hour ago when I simply reposted a comment made by Cueball that I found offensive (you called it stalking).

BTW, Canada's composed of homophobes and male chauvinism, islam is too - it's a fact. Do stating facts ever violate babble policy? (non-rhetorical question) Dare I say islam is composed of a greater percentage of homophobes and male chauvinists than Canada - do I need to reference an opinion poll or can we just take "common-sense-notice" of it?



It's a fact that by painting any group of people with such a huge brush as you have choosen to burden yourself with you are going to piss off people of every political bent.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 February 2006 08:21 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by asterlake:

What race? Asian Muslims? Black muslims? White Muslims?

Islam is an ideology and not a race. It's composed of homophobes and male chauvinism across the racial spectrum. A black Muslim woman in Uganda is delegated to second clas status as well as the semetic woman in Saudi Arabia. Gays in both societies are equally oppresed...there is no colour barrier that protects them from oppression.


You choose two groups that represent a mere fraction of the billion plus muslims on this planet.

You are demonstrating here and now the power of these bigotted cartoons.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 February 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:
What does "audra at rabble dot com" mean. Are you emailing a complaint?

Bingo.

quote:
You posted the same thing about an hour ago when I simply reposted a comment made by Cueball that I found offensive (you called it stalking).

Not quite so simply. You deliberately posted the same identical quote in at least two threads other than the one the quote originated in because the person quoted was posting those threads as well.

quote:
BTW, Canada's composed of homophobes and male chauvinism, islam is too - it's a fact. Do stating facts ever violate babble policy?

Read what you just typed in the quote above and tell us it's a fact.

Go ahead, I dare you.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Yes, fact. As in " the body is composed of 75% water." - "Various poplutions composed of __% homophobes." Fact fact fact. I concur, fact.

In contrast to Reasons opinion above masquerading as fact.

Now go ahead, audra at rabble dot com.

....err, I double dog dare you.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 February 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:
Yes, fact. As in " the body is composed of 75% water." - "Various poplutions composed of __% homophobes."

Funny, I see no such percentages or any other qualifiers in your or Asterlake's orignal posts.

Clean up your act or expect to be called on it.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 February 2006 08:41 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:
Yes, fact. As in " the body is composed of 75% water." - "Various poplutions composed of __% homophobes." Fact fact fact. I concur, fact.

In contrast to Reasons opinion above masquerading as fact.

Now go ahead, audra at rabble dot com.

....err, I double dog dare you.


Fact, I worked and lived in a Muslim community(Bosnia) for an accumalated yr and half, which does not even come close to which you discribe as a closed bigotted society. Instead, I found them to be very warm, charitable and loving.

Is there a percentage of homphobes and bigots in the Muslim faith? There sure is, just as there is a percentage in EVERY single body of human beings on this planet.

If you wish to paint with such a huge brush, I am going to have to insist that you label ALL human beings as homophobes and bigots.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 08:41 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:
[QB]

Not quite so simply. You deliberately posted the same identical quote in at least two threads other than the one the quote originated in because the person quoted was posting those threads as well.
QB]


Not quite so simply, Cueball equated the cartoons as analogous to tattooing Jews. I tried to restrict the repost to topics "somewhat" related to the cartoons - heck he even brought them up in an Emerson topic (a topic I did not repost in), mea culpa. The fact you're more offended by me reposting his comments in a few topics than his analogy tells me plenty about you.

As I said, the re-posts were my little demonstration, letting off steam - I thought you and Cueball could appreciate a little disobedience is response to offensive speech.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

If you wish to paint with such a huge brush, I am going to have to insist that you label ALL human beings as homophobes and bigots.


Wow, I painted Canada with that brush, but ok, since I'm so accommodating - ...the world is composed of homophobes and bigots.

You owe me an "insist" that I will redeem in the next 12 months.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 February 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:

Wow, I painted Canada with that brush, but ok, since I'm so accommodating - ...the world is composed of homophobes and bigots.

You owe me an "insist" that I will redeem in the next 12 months.



You did indeed... I guess there is no depth to stupidity, eh?

Please, would you care to look up the definition of bigotry in your spare time? Thanks.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 08:52 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

Funny, I see no such percentages or any other qualifiers in your or Asterlake's orignal posts.

Clean up your act or expect to be called on it.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]


...because I said "composed of" dummy, I didn't say "Canadian ARE homophobes, I don't need to use a percentage, I subsequently used the percentage to clarify it for YOU, you dumb ass. Before you go reporting babblers, maybe you should understand what they're saying. (heck, "composed of" wasn't even my phrase to begin with).


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 15 February 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:
Cueball equated the cartoons....

Yeah, I read your defense the first time you posted it.

Let me put it simply for you:

Following another poster from thread to thread with the aim of taunting or intimidating them in any way is considered stalking.

Don't do it. Period.

quote:
The fact you're more offended by me reposting his comments in a few topics than his analogy tells me plenty about you.

As is usually the case when someone thinks they they have it all figured out you've proven you don't know squat.

I have not followed the thread that the quote came from, so I didn't see the original or its context. Frankly I don't care about its content or your reaction to it. I am sick of this bullshit free speech vs religious sensibilies squabble between people who can't see what's really going on for the trees.

What I did see was your identical post in two unrelated threads as a deliberate taunting of another poster.

And I called you on it.

Don't like getting called out? Don't act like a jerk.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 09:01 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:


You did indeed... I guess there is no depth to stupidity, eh?

Please, would you care to look up the definition of bigotry in your spare time? Thanks.


Sounds like another insistance. Lot of reactionary, ideological, law and order Babblers around here.

Reason, didn't you start a similar topic with perhaps the most fallacious rhetorical question in babble history.

"Was this exercise in freedom of expression worth the lives it has now cost?"

I insist you change your name from Reason.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 February 2006 09:03 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:

Sounds like another insistance. Lot of reactionary, ideological, law and order Babblers around here.

Reason, didn't you start a similar topic with perhaps the most fallacious rhetorical question in babble history.

"Was this exercise in freedom of expression worth the lives it has now cost?"

I insist you change your name from Reason.



DENIED


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

What I did see was your identical post in two unrelated threads as a deliberate taunting of another poster.
[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]


...taunting with his/her very own words, but whatever...

quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

And I called you on it.

Don't like getting called out? Don't act like a jerk.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Transplant ]


Another law and order reactionary with more threats, great.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 15 February 2006 10:01 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
WS's vile opinions are not just about Muslims.

Now With Extra Insult Power!

The Western Standard - Not Just Hating Muslims Any More!
You Thrilled At Our Dubious Attitudes Towards Muslims, Now Swoon At Our Views On First Nations!

New! 50% More Specious Reasoning!

Catholics - Threat To Civilization Or Wacky Guilt Cult?

Come With Us As We Spin The Wheel Of Defamation! Who Will It Land On? Jew? Gentile? Polack or Shifty Oriental? Find Out Next Time, Only In Your Home Of Hurt, The Western Standard!


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 15 February 2006 10:55 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post
Do you believe Harper's reaction to this event? Is he just playing politics or is he sincere?
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 15 February 2006 11:09 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A minority government is by definition the pre-writ period of the next election - so Harper has to react as he would on campaign. He has to strike the statesman pose.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 15 February 2006 11:13 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm no fan of Harper's but I was beginning to think that he handled it well until it immediately became all about "us" (Canadian soldiers). Is this the reason for his regret as opposed to expressing regret for ignorance of other Canadians? (Who, BTW, canpublish the cartoons but one wonders what possible good that serves. And no, I haven't seen them nor will I.)

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 February 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:

Not quite so simply, Cueball equated the cartoons as analogous to tattooing Jews. I tried to restrict the repost to topics "somewhat" related to the cartoons - heck he even brought them up in an Emerson topic (a topic I did not repost in), mea culpa. The fact you're more offended by me reposting his comments in a few topics than his analogy tells me plenty about you.

As I said, the re-posts were my little demonstration, letting off steam - I thought you and Cueball could appreciate a little disobedience is response to offensive speech.


Thanks for alluding, once again, to my somewhat overastated allegorical illustration of the existance of personal space as a psychological contruct, not just a material one. Gee how offeneded you are. Should you not be defending my right to freedom of speech, but no, I am being denounced, how typical!

You don't seem to understand. Let me try this another way. Do you walk around your town wearing only a trenchcoat, and then show off your aparatus to women whom you would like to meet? Or do you think that such, even though it doesn't directly harm them physically, or in anyway physically interedict their behaviour is an offence against their right, not to be pyschologically harrassed?

Further, do you think that it is possible, even in our domestic wonderland that violence might be perpetrated upon you, not just by the subject of your, no doubt, friendly advance but by passers-by and even the local police, in the way of making you put away your thing?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 15 February 2006 11:43 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Doh, I really should have replied in this topic, but alas

Reply to Cueball

...serves me right.


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 16 February 2006 12:16 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
There was a big discussion at work today about this issue. Some thought it was an issue of hate speech, some thought it was an issue of free speech.

To me it is clear. It is hate speech, because it labels all Muslims as terrorists. These cartoons have no redeeming qualities. Their intent is to slander a minority, cause pain and to agitate.

People don't think of the issue the same way until they personalize it. When I pointed out that the cartoon intends to be a generalized statement and depiction of one of our coworkers, suddenly there was silence, and people started seeing the issue in a different light.

Rights are to be enjoyed responsibly, and contrary to popular belief, (and under good government for all people and peaceful coexistance,) rights end where others get hurt by them.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 16 February 2006 12:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

You choose two groups that represent a mere fraction of the billion plus muslims on this planet.

You are demonstrating here and now the power of these bigotted cartoons.


Precisley, and the insidious wedge which is being used to insert this type of malicious idea is our cherrished notion of freedom of speech, which it turns out has become the symbolic axis that then defines what is deemed to be antithetical to our 'superior' cultural norms.

Are we presented with any surveys of Muslim opinion, any hard facts at all here? No! Instead their is the appeal to common-sense base prejudice of the very kind that is propogated by cartoons, whithout recourse to even a shred of evidence that Muslims are more violent, more homophobic and more sexist than we are.

It stands to reason that if our culture was somehow inately less homophobic, and sexist there would be no need to enshrine the rights of women, gay and lesbian people into the Charter of Rights, as societal norms would simply accept the rights of women, gay and lesbian people as a matter of the daily course of our lives, without question. But that is not the case.

Is it necessary to note here that 70% of the population of the United States is opposed to SSM marriage.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 16 February 2006 12:59 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Screaming Lord B.: get thee to the Hall of Fame.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 16 February 2006 02:21 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can we look forward to Levant publishing these kooky pictures?

In pictures: New Abu Ghraib images


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 16 February 2006 02:28 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
posted by al-Qa'bong: Can we look forward to Levant publishing these kooky pictures? (New Abu Ghraib images)
oh surely that would violate the Western Standard's code for ethical journalism, right?

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 February 2006 07:51 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by asterlake:
What race? Asian Muslims? Black muslims? White Muslims?

Islam is an ideology and not a race. It's composed of homophobes and male chauvinism across the racial spectrum.


Yep, okay, goodbye. That's more than enough out of you.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 February 2006 07:53 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
P.S. This thread is long enough too.
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