quote:

---

Let me suggest it's not due to the specific cartoons. It's a reaction to a long, even centuries-long experience of being the object of someone else's caricatures with no effective way to reply. Cartoons of Arab “oil sheiks” began to proliferate after the 1973 Mideast war: hook-nosed, leering, lascivious and greedy. Add cartoons of menacing Arab terrorists, not just in newspapers but in movies like Black Sunday and True Lies. There was an older tradition, too — like that depicted by Rudolf Valentino in the silent film, The Sheik — going back to the 19th century and before.

...

The late Edward Said noted in his book Orientalism that Western scrutiny of Arabs and Islam was always one-way and a form of control. It assumed the sole right to define the situation and write books on it.

---

So now we're up to, what, ten or so people in the world who believe it's not just about the specific cartoons? - That is, if we count those Muslims in New York, a couple of international Muslim commentators, plus ephemeral and Cueball of course, and now a guy in Toronto.

I don't know, we haven't yet heard about a poll, which is I suppose, what Mr. Magoo is waiting for before he admits the validity of this point of view.

Anyways, for those who really think it's about the cartoons, I offer you this:

quote:

---

A clash of civs is just a big cartoon to get your mind off your headache from thinking about what's really out there.

---

Here's the column.

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

quote:

---

So now we're up to, what, ten or so people in the world who believe it's not just about the specific cartoons?

---

quote:

---

So now we're up to, what, ten or so people in the world who believe it's not just about the specific cartoons? - That is, if we count those Muslims in New York, a couple of international Muslim commentators, plus ephemeral and Cueball of course, and now a guy in Toronto.

---

You can make that 11. I certainly do not think this is just about a cartoon.

And, while we are at it, I do not think the support for Islamist politics in general come about from a spontaneous desire for piety.

And, i don't think the conflicts in Ireland, Iraq, Israel have anything to do with theology.

quote:

---

I just hope the next time some white North American male pontificates on the mindset of the Muslim world we don't discredit him as priveleged or non-Muslim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
I think Salutin is full of beans (actually pork and beans). The Muslim world riots because of caricatures about them rioting. The caricatures are unfortunately correct and not the fault of "The West".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
I think Salutin is full of beans (actually pork and beans). The Muslim world riots because of caricatures about them rioting. The caricatures are unfortunately correct and not the fault of "The West".

---

quote:

---

This is a religion of peace?

---

Shall we count how many Christians were at the Wannsee conference supergenius?

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: ronb ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
" Kuwaiti TV station reports kidnappers of American Jill Carroll set final deadline for their demands to be met or she will be killed."
From various MSM. This is a religion of peace?

---

quote:

---

Why are not masses of Muslims condemning the kidnapers

---

not sure how many Muslims constitute a "mass" or "masses."

quote:

---

Mr Kember, 74, of Pinner, north London, was kidnapped along with two Canadians and an American in Baghdad on 26 November.

...

Muslim peace groups, scholars, and activists from all over the world, including the Palestinian Islamist group, Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah, have appealed for the safe release of the four aid workers.

---

Al-Jazeera

i know that there have in fact been actual demonstrations by Muslims against the kidnappings as well. i wish i had time to find you the links.

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
This is a religion of peace?

---

Math professor, huh? It appears as if binary logic has taken over your entire brain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
Why are not masses of Muslims condemning the kidnapers/ They are giving Islam the bad name. Much silence.. Maybe they fear for their own lives.

---

How do you know whether or not large amounts of Muslims are condemning the kidnappers? What media coverage would they get?

[ 10 February 2006: Message edited by: AWd ]

quote:

---

Why are not masses of Muslims condemning the kidnapers/

---

In the case of the Canadians who were kidnapped, and are still kidnapped, prominent Muslim leaders denounced the act and demanded they be set free.

As well, a senior Muslim leader travelled from Britain to plead with the kidnappers, on radio and television, to let them go free.

quote:

---

Originally posted by libertarian:
And Al Jazeera

---

As Islamic fundamentalism becomes more ascendant, it's so easy to forget that Islam has a long and recent history of secular integration and modernity. Turkey, Indonesia, Iraq before the first war, Egypt, and more examples of Muslims living peacefully in multi-ethnic, multi-faith communities. Is Islam a "religion of peace?" What does that mean? Even Jesus said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."

quote:

---

So now we're up to, what, ten or so people in the world who believe it's not just about the specific cartoons? - That is, if we count those Muslims in New York, a couple of international Muslim commentators, plus ephemeral and Cueball of course, and now a guy in Toronto.

---

I've posted this already, but there's that guy in Palestine:

'Cartoons reflect Europe's Islamophobia'

quote:

---

These cartoons are a reflection of rampant Islamophobia in Europe, which is very similar and nearly as virulent as the anti-Semitism that existed in Europe, especially in Germany, prior to World War II. This anti-Semitism eventually led to the Holocaust and the deaths of millions of human beings.

You see, when you send out thousands of hate messages against a certain ethnic or religious community every day, you make people hate these people, and when mass hatred reaches a certain point, nobody would object to the physical extermination of the hated community when it happens.

---

Magoo, of course, trusts what he sees with his own eyes, and so, with his flat-earth perspective, knows otherwise.

[Here's a hint: if his posts bug you, just scroll past his nonsense. His expertise doesn't extend very far past the dessert section of a buffet table anyway)

Oh, what the heck, here's something Magoo can deal with:

New Evidence Suggests Muslim Riots Are Staged Psyop

quote:

---

As news breaks of four more demonstrators being shot dead in Kabul, fresh evidence has surfaced lending credibility to the assertion that the Muslim riots are a staged psyop or at the very least based on false pretenses.

Yesterday leading Russian MP Vladimir Zhirinovsky said that the riots were a manufactured psychological operation on the part of the US in an attempt to enlist hardened EU support for a military strike against Iran.

As first highlighted by this website and others, more evidence has come to light that confirms fake and misleading caricatures were bundled in with the more tame cartoons that were printed in Danish newspapers. Muslims were misled into believing that all the images were printed in newspapers when they were not.

---

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

quote:

---

But Rebick defended the cartoon, by Toronto artist Mike Constable, as satire.
"Canada has a long history of satire. Sometimes very biting satire," she said.
"He's our artist. He has complete artistic freedom to do whatever he wants to do."

---

I am sure that Ms. Rebick would not feel this way today regarding “satire” and the Muslim religion. It is obvious today that “biting satire” about what people hold sacred is not constructive.

I hope that the “born again” respect for religion now found on the Rabble site will be extended to the Catholic faith.

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: 1960 ]

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: 1960 ]

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: abnormal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1960:
A quote from last year regarding the Pope cartoons at Rabble:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/27/catholic-pope050527.html

I am sure that Ms. Rebick would not feel this way today regarding “satire” and the Muslim religion. It is obvious today that “biting satire” about what people hold sacred is not constructive.

I hope that the “born again” respect for religion now found on the Rabble site will be extended to the Catholic faith.

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: 1960 ]

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: 1960 ]

---

Gee, uhhhmm just a thought, but unless you are professing a competence in Extra-Censory-Perception (ECP.) you might let her speak for herself.

Just because your political views are based upon personal prejudices which contradict each other fundamentally on princple, does not mean that everyone else are.

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Just because your political views are based upon personal prejudices which contradict each other fundamentally on princple, does not mean that everyone else are.

---

Eh?

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: 1960 ]

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: 1960 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by looney:
When I look at the Islamic reaction and the reaction of Canadians generally on this issue, I think "Canada works." And, "maybe anti-hate laws are a better thing than we realize."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1960:
I get it, you used a dictionary.

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

[ 12 February 2006: Message edited by: 1960 ]

---

Ok, you are charging that Rebick will contradict the principle upon which Rebick made her original defence of the cartoon that appeared on this site regarding the Pope, and reverse it in the case of the Anti-muslim hate cartoons. So I am saying that just because your principles drift around depending on which of your own personal prejudices (prejudices being emotive rather than reasoned like principles) does not mean that everyone elses do.

The prophet as the messenger of God, opened the door to salvation, and is thus a far more holy figure. Trashing the prophet seems to me like trashing one's own parents, except an even more intense connection is felt for Mohammed.

Moreover, there are a thousand and one frustrations out there, in almost every country where Muslims are oppressed. For many, this is the humiliating reality:

quote:

---

But by lampooning the prophet, one's touches Muslims at the core of their connection with God

---

edited to add: I think Levant is arguing that if we're going to frown on depictions of Muhammad, then you have to be equally protective of depicting Jesus Christ and the Hebrew prophets. Where would it end? Probably in religious fascism. Would you protect all prophets, or just the major ones, from being depicted? Maybe some of the minor prophets (and Xn saints) are also deserving of protection...

[ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Ezra Levant was just interviewed on CTV anout his intention to publish eight of the cartoons today,
saying this is not Saudi Arabia, we're a safe country, we don't follow the Koran or Muslim law here, and, anyway, other publishers mock Christianity's Jesus Christ (gave the example of Kayne West on the cover of this week's Rolling Stone dressed as JC Himself).

---

All such a one sided exemption will do is create more hate and resentment, which is not what we want. Allow lampooning of all (what the free speech folks want) or none (what's been proposed to the UN), but picking and choosing is a guaranteed way of bringing more hatred into the situation.

quote:

---

Allow lampooning of all (what the free speech folks want) or none (what's been proposed to the UN), but picking and choosing is a guaranteed way of bringing more hatred into the situation.

---

In the event that we're stupid enough to go with Option B (Religions and their sacred icons off limits to all) then I hope that Atheists will each get to choose one thing that will also be sacred and legally protected against any form of criticism. Seems only fair.

It isn't much of a stretch to see criticism of the Catholic Church from within Western culture, which is steeped in Catholic history and traditions, as being legitimate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

In the event that we're stupid enough to go with Option B (Religions and their sacred icons off limits to all) then I hope that Atheists will each get to choose one thing that will also be sacred and legally protected against any form of criticism. Seems only fair.

Atheists: what would you pick?

---

I think I would make Kanye West off limits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
There is the issue of criticism from 'within' your culture versus from outside.

It isn't much of a stretch to see criticism of the Catholic Church from within Western culture, which is steeped in Catholic history and traditions, as being legitimate.

Taking the next step and criticizing another culture from outside is more fraught with hazards. Attacking the roots of another faith and culture should not be done lightly.

---

quote:

---

It isn't much of a stretch to see criticism of the Catholic Church from within Western culture, which is steeped in Catholic history and traditions, as being legitimate.

---

I don't think the Catholics who wrote letters of protest agreed.

Argue if you will that the hate speech law should be repealed, and that conviction of Ernst Zundel et all should be overturned, but don't argue as if people are asking for exceptional treatement, at least not in this countrty.

quote:

---

myata: neither words no cartoons burn/destroy or hurt.

---

quote:

---

myata: Why else would it cause such a stir thousands of miles away from Denmark etc., ...

---

[ 13 February 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

You realize of course that the Pope isn't just the "head Priest". He's Catholics' connection with God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Many people here are arguing that application of hate speech laws against the Western Standard for reprinting the cartoons would be an unfair exception protecting Muslim values as opposed to other values. No. Actually not applying the hate speech laws against the Western Standard would be an unfair exception. We are saying that the Canadian hate speech laws are only to be applied in the case of Jewish people and in regards to the holocaust.

---

Who is arguing that the hate speech laws should "only" apply to the Jewish people and the holocaust?

I do think that the comparison between anti-Islam and anti-Catholic speech is entirely appropriate. If one is subject to criminalization so is the other.

However, trying to pose this debate in terms of the idea that there is some version of unqualified freedom of speech here, or in Denmark, of whatever is just wrong. So, all the slippery slope arguements are just out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
You've never been called a "n*gger", that's pretty obvious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...trying to pose this debate in terms of the idea that there is some version of unqualified freedom of speech here, or in Denmark, of whatever is just wrong. So, all the slippery slope arguements are just out.

---

Fair enough. When I posited the comparison, in some other thread, with León Ferrari, I wasn't actually trying to make a "slippery slope" argument; as you say, all societies ban *some* expression, so in a sense we are always on the slippery slope. What I was saying is that there are other cultural situations in which a given "artistic" expression is painful to passionate believers of a religion; that the assertion that blasphemy should be banned because of that pain is not appropriate in a pluralistic society; and that in my opinion this whole cartoon incident will be used the next time the Argentinian church wants to try to squelch Ferrari's work (which it has been consistently trying to do for many years.)

In other words, it is not so much that it puts us on the slippery slope as that it provides an unfortunate precedent. In fact, (and I apologize for the thread title, but it seemed funny to me) it is already being used, as I point out here. (I realized after I posted that it should have gone in the media section rather than news. Mea culpa.)

So perhaps I was wrong about whether your argument relies on the veracity of Flemming Rose. Perhaps in fact it does require that Rose be lying. Because I think we agree that the republication is simply provocative and the cries of "we must defend freedom of speech" are specious.

Denmark, to put my own interpretation of the context on the table, is a country where free expression is taken to a point which this Canadian, at least, initially found shocking. Despite what Danish law formally states, it (at least was) pretty unlikely that any action would have been taken against something published in a newspaper. As one (Muslim) observer says in one of the many editorials published on this subject, "Danes think they invented freedom of speech" (or words to that effect, I've lost the reference, sorry); I wouldn't have found those particularly eloquent words but it definitely aligns with my observations.

Now, as I've said a few times, the Jutland Post is known to be right-wing and anti-immigrant. Although it is probably the largest circulation newspaper in Denmark, it is far from the only one, and no-one is under any obligation to buy it. You can certainly find out what is going on in Denmark and in the world from other sources. There are a lot of newspapers, here, in Canada, in England, in the other countries I've lived in, which I just won't read because I know they will piss me off. (OK, there was a time when I would do that to myself, masochistically, I suppose for the adrenalin rush of a good rage, but I always knew that I had no-one but myself to blame.)

So, just looking at the original publication, there is the question of whether the Jutland Post's editorial team got together and said, "Now let's see if we can really hurt those damn Muslims", or if, looking at the world through their particular cultural lens, they just said "hey, maybe there is an issue of self-censorship going on here".

I'm inclined to the second interpretation, because there is no real evidence that they attempted to commission deliberately provocative images (if they had attempted to do so, it's clear that they had very little success). Nonetheless, they received a couple of images which are certainly provocative, which demonstrates that at least one Danish caricaturist is somewhat anti-Muslim, but not the majority. The vast majority chose not to participate in the competition, and of the ones who did participate, several used the opportunity to make fun of the Jutland Post (and the competition).

So Rose had to decide what to do with the offensive images. He consulted at least one Muslim, who apparently told him that yes, it was offensive. But on the other hand, he'd painted himself into a bit of a corner. Having set out to demonstrate whether or not there was self-censorship going on, he was now presented with an argument for censorship. In the end, I would guess, he looked at the cartoon through his own eyes and decided it wasn't "that bad".

That may have been a bad judgement, but I suspect that nothing would have happened had the cartoons not been stripped from their original (Danish) context and mixed up with several other issues and political manoeuvres.

Several newspapers have "ombudsmen" or "readers' editors"; I can't help but think that this is really an illustration of why that role is useful. In the first place, it would have given Rose someone to consult with; in the second place, it would have provided a channel for the resulting protest. There is no proof that if the newspaper had apologised shortly after printing the cartoons that the international incident would have been avoided, but it is certainly possible.

In long (I can't possibly get away with saying in short, after all of that), the whole thing reveals mostly that it is impossible to have a civilized conversation about anything in a world where the most powerful country is being run by a clique of homocidal maniacs. But that's what we should be talking about. Trying to lower the bars on what is considered censorable expression is just playing into the hands of the world's would-be repressors, who already have far too much influence. And it's a smokescreen which hides the real issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by myata:

God forbid, I haven't. Have you? How did it feel? I'm holding my breath to know.

---

Gee, let me put it too you this way. There is a big difference between being in Compton, and being singled out as white, and derided as such, when their is a whole load of potential violence aroung and the slur is part and parcel of a direct physical threat, and simply being slandered while you sit in the Second Cup.

I'm not really sure what is meant by that last line, but the Catholic Encyclopedia has this (excerpt of a much longer article):

quote:

---

I think the constitutionality of the hate speech provision (not promotion of genocide) is really hanging by a thread. The Court barely upheld it in Keegstra and the dissenting opinion was written by the Chief Justice. If the current Court reconsiders it, I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted the provisions even more strictly, to reduce the likelihood of convictions in any but the clearest cases. I know alot of people here think this is one, but the standard for a criminal conviction under the section is really quite high.

---

That's a good point.

It is also not surprising that the Calgary police has decided not to go ahead against the Western Standard.

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

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

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

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

To contravene the Criminal Code, a person must:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

---

Self-censorship versus editing

EDWARD GREENSPON

Editor-in-chief
Globe And Mail

Let's begin with a simple argument before we start dancing, with the angels and prophets, on the head of a pin: The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten had every right to publish the now-famous/infamous cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

At the same time, Muslims and anyone else who might have been offended by the depictions have the right to protest against their publication.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways: It embraces the right to give offence and the right of the offended to express themselves individually or assemble and express themselves collectively.

There is no known right, however, to attack individuals or property, no matter how grave the offence taken. o much for the simple stuff. Now for some more difficult questions, beginning with the endless debates this week in newsrooms, classrooms and even dressing rooms over whether papers should republish these cartoons as a statement of principle.

Here at The Globe and Mail, along with the vast majority of newspapers in the Western world, the editors -- ultimately the editor-in-chief -- carefully weighed the issues and decided against republication. This was neither a unanimous judgment nor one arrived at unambiguously. It is a decision with which many in our newsroom would disagree and one with which I struggled.

Could a decision not to publish be construed as cowardice and lack of principle? Were we afraid to offend, afraid of a possible backlash? Was it a politically correct decision or simply one that was rightly respectful of the sensibilities of a minority group in this land of diversity and tolerance?

We came to the conclusion that republishing would be both gratuitous and unnecessarily provocative, especially given what we knew about how offended Muslims, not just those in the streets but those counselling calm, felt about the cartoons. It didn't seem to be a matter of publish and be damned, but more like "damn you," and publish, a course bound to generate more heat than light.

---

quote:

---

The article defines the pedagogic and moral function of satire with the ancient Latin adage "castigat ridendo mores" (castigate customs laughing).
The text praises satire, for example, "when it has lashed out at evil customs and denounced the injustices of every age, unmasking the idolatry of the 'powerful,' depriving it of that sacred and artful halo which often concealed vices and corruption."
But this, the author adds, has nothing to do with "low, 'sacrilegious' whims. When its target is the values and symbols of religion, of the sacred in the absolute and indefectible sense, it inevitably loses its nature and function,"
"Being deprived of any critical and educational objective, it becomes mere rage. It is transformed into gratuitous vulgarity," he notes.

---

Judging from some of the incidents happening in Europe they are not, and Europe is not putting its foot down.

Just recently a British judge agreed to bar Jews and Hindus from the jury at the trial of a Muslim who called for the murder of homosexuals (among other things), Dutch Language Union decreed that Christ be spelled with a small c, Muslims are demanding that crucifixes be removed from hospitals. Winnie the Pooh, piglet, piggy banks and other images of pigs have to go, and some Muslim fathers in Austria want ALL Muslim teachers to wear the hijab. Small, inroads into the suppression of western freedoms but it only takes a step at a time.

In France, more than 10,000 cars were torched by mainly young Muslims and the world yawned - but the cartoon demonstrations in Britain, police ignored signs saying "Exterminate those who mock Islam' and "Be prepared for the real holocaust,' but very quickly arrested two counter protesters carrying postcards with images of Mohammed. Go figure.

Opus Dei demands cuts to Da Vinci code

quote:

---

The conservative Roman Catholic group at the centre of The Da Vinci Code, the film adaptation of Dan Brown's controversial novel, has called on the film-makers to change the ending so as not to offend Catholics.

...Opus Dei said that Sony Pictures still had time to make changes to the film ... that would be appreciated by Catholics, "particularly in these days in which everyone has noted the painful consequences of intolerance"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rici Lake:
And the meme continues:

Opus Dei demands cuts to Da Vinci code

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chilipepper:
Maybe the question here is really: Are Muslims going to live by the rules and laws of the Wesern nation they live in, or by the rules of Islam?

Judging from some of the incidents happening in Europe they are not, and Europe is not putting its foot down.

Just recently a British judge agreed to bar Jews and Hindus from the jury at the trial of a Muslim who called for the murder of homosexuals (among other things), Dutch Language Union decreed that Christ be spelled with a small c, Muslims are demanding that crucifixes be removed from hospitals. Winnie the Pooh, piglet, piggy banks and other images of pigs have to go, and some Muslim fathers in Austria want ALL Muslim teachers to wear the hijab. Small, inroads into the suppression of western freedoms but it only takes a step at a time.

In France, more than 10,000 cars were torched by mainly young Muslims and the world yawned - but the cartoon demonstrations in Britain, police ignored signs saying "Exterminate those who mock Islam' and "Be prepared for the real holocaust,' but very quickly arrested two counter protesters carrying postcards with images of Mohammed. Go figure.

Kofi Anan wants an International law which would make it illegal to defame religion, that would also make it illegal for Rabble to lampoon the Pope. That is if Canada signed on to it - is this what you would want?

---

Well this is a pile of racist hooey too. Like what happened to the idea that the people ritoing in France shared the commonality of being poor people living in ghettos, whom happen mostly to be Muslim because France is a racist society which has imported Muslim people to become their garbage men, their taxi-drivers and their maids? But no they rioted because they are Muslim.

Of course Muslims aren't allowed to make offensive signs, but anti-choice protestors get a nod and a wink from this poster, when they suggest that doctors who perfrom abortions should be killed.

The latter is of course all right, because we understand Christian right wingers, and know that they are the exception not the rule, but when it is Muslims some iconoclastic old farts with quaint notions about headgear for respectable professional ladies represent the ominous rip tide of insurgent Islam in totality.

And sorry, but demanding that we ban Will and Grace and demanding that we ban Piglet are similarly absurd. Why the hell shouldn't I laugh equally at both?

quote:

---

Let me suggest it's not due to the specific cartoons. It's a reaction to a long, even centuries-long experience of being the object of someone else's caricatures with no effective way to reply.

---

See ADL, for one. You couldn't really call these 'effective', though.

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: tvarga ]

quote:

---

Thank you, N.Beltov, you illustrated my point very well. You see, there's an important difference between a cartoon and "warfare". With the second, if a blow or a shot is aimed at someone, they have no choice but get hurt or even die.

---

[ 15 February 2006: Message edited by: faith ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by myata:
Umph, excuse me. No one is tearing strip after strip here because someone happen to belong to certain ethnic group or religion. We're talking about exhibiting certain behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Where was this cavalier attitude, Magoo, when you were tearing strip after strip from Kalle Lasn for his list of influential Jewish members of the Bush government?

---

As I saw it, Lasn was making a direct accusation, albeit in a passive-aggressive way. And resurrecting the age-old myth of Zionists secretly running the world besides.

If you believe that a drawing of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban directly accuses 1.2 billion Muslims of being terrorists then I can see how you'd find the comparison apt, but I don't buy it.

quote:

---

As I saw it, Lasn was making a direct accusation, albeit in a passive-aggressive way. And resurrecting the age-old myth of Zionists secretly running the world besides.

---

As someone else said earlier, you see what you want to see.

Lasn pointed out certain members of the Bush government, many of whom had acknowledged close ties to the Likud government in Israel(to the extent of helping Netanyahu's political campaigns), and suggested they influenced US policy in the Middle East. This is hardly a wild-eyed accusation.

You made the leap to claiming this is equivalent to the World-wide Zionist conspiracy theory.

These cartoons don't accuse individual Muslims or Arabs, they accuse every one of them, because of who they are.

quote:

---

Strange thought ... not to mention trivial, but it's late. If there's been no images of Mohammed for the last 1400 years, how is it possible to make an image of him - no one can know how he looks?

---

How about those Messiah-as-rock-star images of Jesus?

Anyway, apparently there are images of The Prophet out there.

quote:

---

All depictions of Muhammad -- or so we hear daily -- are now and have always been forbidden in Islam. Art's history disputes this. True, that strict taboo today is honored now by almost all Muslims, but old paintings of the prophet -- finely brushed expensive ones, made carefully and piously by Muslims and for them -- are well known to most curators of Islamic art.

There are numerous examples in public institutions in Istanbul, Vienna, Edinburgh, London, Dublin, Los Angeles and New York.

Four are here in Washington in the Smithsonian Institution on the Mall. Three are in the Freer Gallery of Art. The fourth is next door in the Freer's sister museum, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.

These portrayals of Muhammad are not big or new or common. Most were made for the elite. And most were bound in books. These were lavish volumes that were political in purpose, and were designed to celebrate and dignify self-promoting rulers. What their paintings show is this: Once upon a time -- in the era of the caliphs and the sultans and the shahs, when the faithful felt triumphant, and courtly learning blossomed -- the prophet did appear in great Islamic art.

Old portrayals of Muhammad come from Sunni lands and Shia ones, from the Turkey of the Ottomans, the India of the Mughals, from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran. The oldest that survive were painted circa 1300. The newest were produced about 200 years ago.

---

Washington Post

I don't know about the article's credibility, though. Check this out:

quote:

---

Not so long ago some Saudis died a violent death while attempting to prevent television with all its images from entering their land. Now millions of their countrymen now watch it every day.

---

Ouch!

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Well this is a pile of racist hooey too. Like what happened to the idea that the people ritoing in France shared the commonality of being poor people living in ghettos, whom happen mostly to be Muslim because France is a racist society which has imported Muslim people to become their garbage men, their taxi-drivers and their maids? But no they rioted because they are Muslim.

Of course Muslims aren't allowed to make offensive signs, but anti-choice protestors get a nod and a wink from this poster, when they suggest that doctors who perfrom abortions should be killed.

The latter is of course all right, because we understand Christian right wingers, and know that they are the exception not the rule, but when it is Muslims some iconoclastic old farts with quaint notions about headgear for respectable professional ladies represent the ominous rip tide of insurgent Islam in totality.

Well written, I must say, too bad your a close-minded xenophobic asshole.

---

Too bad you choose to call names instead of debating content or the issue. Standard operating procedure I guess, disagree and call someone names, its a great way shut down debate. As a female I maybe I take more offence at someone insisting I wear a Hijab, whats next, a full Burka, then oh I know, separate the males and females, then hmmm maybe no female teachers or doctors. Sure...just cave in to unreasonable demands and watch what happens. As a female I have more to lose than the males.

I know French people of Maghrebian origin who are utterly furious about the recent emergence of the term "Muslim" as a default descriptor of them - because they aren't remotely religious and don't like to be lumped into a religious community they feel no part of.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I don't feel there is any danger whatsoever of white Europeans being forced to veil by people who remain a discriminated underclass, but the danger is very real for women of Maghrebian and West African origin in Paris suburbs and housing estates ("cités"). But the best defenders of immigrant women's rights have emerged and will continue to emerge from those communities.

---

If something is radically right wing fundamentalist and prone to violent, he will often be there with excuses for it and he will attack with insults anyone who disagrees with his viewpoints.

It is just part of the discussion on Babble. All discussion boards have people on the fringe. He just happens to be there to make excuses for the Islamist fringe right.

You will just have to get used to it. It's kind of fun actually. It adds an interesting dimension to the discussion.

P.S. lagatta and brebis noire: good point in bringing up the matter of French cités. Those movements are a very direct parallel to the anti-sharia movements here in Canada that have arisen from within the Moslem communities themselves. Interestingly, the main opponents of the anti-sharia movenent in Canada are the very same conservative religious Moslem group that are trying to censor the cartoons in the name of their conception of orthodox religious dogma.

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

And if you think making a socio-economic analysis of ghetto life in France, in favour of cultural religous anaylisis is right wing, you better brush up on your history of the left. In fact the latter is in the tradition of the right.

BTW, did you bother to read my summation of my views on the Jylland-Posten story, on the WS 3 thread, or did you just bypass that in favour of your fantasy version of what I think and believe?

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I see so asking your local school district to enforce a dress code upon its employees

---

Do you mean "employees", or perhaps "female employees"?

Many people of Arab and other Middle Eastern origins, and not just religious fundamentalisms, saw the Danish cartoons as adding insult to injury - we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in the recent torture pics. There was an interview with Montréal sociologist of Egyptian origin Rachad Antonius - not even a Muslim by family background, but a Coptic Christian - and he explained how these were seen as one more humiliation.

One can certainly oppose violence by protesters or the way protests against the cartoons were manipulated by authoritarian (secular) regimes as in Syria, but Muslims have every right to stage peaceful protests against cartoons they saw as an insult to their faith community.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chilipepper:

Too bad you choose to call names instead of debating content or the issue. Standard operating procedure I guess, disagree and call someone names, its a great way shut down debate. As a female I maybe I take more offence at someone insisting I wear a Hijab, whats next, a full Burka, then oh I know, separate the males and females, then hmmm maybe no female teachers or doctors. Sure...just cave in to unreasonable demands and watch what happens. As a female I have more to lose than the males.

as for this: "Of course Muslims aren't allowed to make offensive signs, but anti-choice protestors get a nod and a wink from this poster, when they suggest that doctors who perfrom abortions should be killed. "
please show me where I have agreed with killing doctors who perform abortions. I've never ever said any such thing. I'm pro-choice so don't fabricate your acusations.

---

I didn't say you agreed with Christian fundamentalist, I said you choose to ignore them, recognizing them as the fringe element that they are. The difference is the presumption that these few people with these toxic "radical Islamic" views are the cutting edge of something bigger within Islam, when they are by far and away the minority.

Islam is a religion, get over it.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Do you mean "employees", or perhaps "female employees"?

If it's only the female employees we're talking about, then I shall go pop some popcorn and watch you defend that crap.

---

Well Magoo, we aren't all wearing the same navy blue Mao unifroms over here yet, even in this bastion of egalitarian liberty it is the case that professional styles for men and women are different.

I didn't say I thought it was a good thing, not at all, but as usual anything which in any way accepts Muslim peoples right to be different, is immediatly contstrued as support for their views.

They have a right to say what it is that think, isne't that right Magoo? Freedom of speech, remember?

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

profession styles for men and women are different.

---

That's how you describe women being forced to cover themselves when men are not? "Different"?

I don't think you will see to many Autrian schools allowing female teachers to wear knee high "fuck me boots" and super short mini-skirts to work.

Topless teachers are the stuff of your hard drive Magoo, not the real world.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Excuse me, women are forced in most societies to cover themsleves, so are men for that matter. Tradition is different as to how that is applied, and it is the case that in most countires proffessional teachers are required to conform to a dress code.
I don't think you will see to many Autrian schools allowing female teachers to wear knee high "fuck me boots" and super short mini-skirts to work.

Topless teachers are the stuff of your hard drive Magoo, not the real world.

---

I think you're having a meltdown.

Who's asking women to wear "fuck me boots" or go topless?

Those are the only two alternatives to women being forced to veil?

quote:

---

Muslims have every right to stage peaceful protests against cartoons they saw as an insult to their faith community.

---

Exactly. Canadian Moslems seem immune to fundamentalist B.S. and have tended to handle the whole thing in a very mature spirit. However, the main or most vocal opponents of the cartoons in the Canadian Moslem community have been rightwingers who also support sharia, oppose gay rights, and want to make it a crime to criticize religious beliefs (simply criticize, not mock as comedians like Monty Python have done or expose to comtempt which is indeed a political or moral issue) - they have called for laws to enforce religious orthodoxy, theirs. In a secular society, that is simply a non-starter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I think you're having a meltdown.

Who's asking women to wear "fuck me boots" or go topless?

Those are the only two alternatives to women being forced to veil?

How about just giving them EXACTLY THE SAME FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR CLOTHES AS MEN?

---

Men in professional situations don't really have a choice either. Usually they are discouraged from wearing "fuck me boots" and mini skirts as well.

Signs of radical Islamic insurgency infecting the Orthdox Church? When will the Islamic peril be stopped!

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: myata ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
However, the main or most vocal opponents of the cartoons in the Canadian Moslem community have been rightwingers who also support sharia, oppose gay rights, and want to make it a crime to criticize religious beliefs....

---

How do you know this, exactly - are you really a critical mass of people? I don't know any fundamentalist Muslims personally, but I am acquainted with a small sample of people from a more secular Middle Eastern and European background, and while they are not calling outright for censorship, they are opposed the cartoons. This small sample is also defiantly opposed to sharia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by myata:
I think we're pretty close to the consensus here: in a mature civilized society like ours, everyone has the right to ask anyone to wear a veil, turban or any other kind of ceremonial clothing. Inseparable from it is of course the right of that other person to f*** them off in an equally polite and civilized manner.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: myata ]

---

I am not sure about the mature and civilized part, but I agree.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I think the devout followers of the more hardline fractions of all monotheistic faiths oppress women. There are, of course, religious people who have played an important part in movements for human emancipation, but if the more hardline "orthodox" (small o) beliefs are followed literally, they certainly don't promote women's rights. The right-wing Catholics in power in Poland have done much to harm the emancipation of women and of gay people. Looking at the ultraorthodox Jewish community in Outremont and Mile End, near where I live, it certainly is no model of women's equality. Girls are reared only to be wives and mothers (though actually, ultraorthodox women often are the breadwinners) and produce large broods.

I want to make clear that I'm not talking about faith, but about the way religious doctrine is used as a weapon against women.

---

I agree with this too. I think that sexism and homophobia are fairly universal constants, but the mode (law religion custom) through which these ideas, both latent and expressed, changes. I think, more often than not, what people react to when they see women's oppression in other societies, it is not so much the opression itself, but the unfamiliar mode through which it is expressed.

This is not to say that there are not radical differences, and brutal repression in some cases, and even superior legislated protections in others, but that we do not necessarily see the opressive custom or manner in the societies with which we are familiar.

It is normalized.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It's been all over the newspapers and broadcast news for a week now.

Congress leaders in the past have supported sharia, opposed gay rights, acted as apologists for suicide bombings against innocent civilians and at various times severely attacked (or tried to intimidate if you prefer) other Moslems who are more moderate or progressive.

The Congress cannot exactly be described as the most enlightened or progressive group of people around. And they happen to be one of the major groups in this current controversy.

Notice how different the approach has been from other Moslem Canadian organizations.

Je n'ai pas de chapeau.

This raises an interesting point doesn't it? The main protagonists now seem to have become Ezra Levant and his convervative publication and the conservative Islamic Congress. Once again, more progressive voices on all sides of the debate have been pushed to the margins.

So if you oppose religious pressures for censorship, people who disagree can try to push you into the "evil bigot" Levant camp. And I'm sure the Levants will try to push any critics of the publishing of the cartoons into the camp of "anti-Western" religious authoritarians or worse.

Nice. Another example of how progressive voices let conservatives steal their thunder.

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

Just because you construe this to be an apology for killing "innocent" civilians, as your "logical" deduction, does not mean that is what was said.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

It was a widely covered controversy all over the Canadian media. Saying there are "no innocent civilians" is an apology for what constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity under various itnernational legal instruments. Once again, the broken record known as Cueball finds an excuse for rightwing fundamentalist violence. Cueball, even the president realized he had gone too far and decided to offer to make amends by tendering a resignation. You can so come off as more of an apologist than the apologists themselves at times.

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

Elmasry was asked a series of questions, wherein he suggested that all Israeli citizens over 18 were IDF resever, so not actually "civilian." He was the asked:

"So, is every Israeli over the age of 18 a legitimate target," and he said "yes."

The statement is entirely different when taken in context.

You make your mind as to if you think he is right on this point, but he was not advocating killing "innocent" civilians, but saying in fact that after the age of 18, and forcibly becoming an inductee into the IDF, Israelis lose there "civilian" status.

As for the flounceroo, about quitting the CIC, that is a little bit of politics wich you don't seem to understand. I will explain.

By offering to resign, he was essentially asking his organization if they supported his statement. By refusing to let him resign, the organization was tacitly stating that they supported the statement, not rejecting it.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The statement is entirely different when taken in context.

---

Yes. Taken out of context, he's justifying killing anyone over 18. Taken in context, he's saying it's Ok to kill anyone over 18.

Most notably there are specfic groups of Arab-Israelis whom are simply not allowed to serve their country due to their ethnic backgound, some Arabs are, specifically the Druze and the Bedouin.

I don't really care myself as I think the whole civilian/soldier paradigm is simply a legal justification for the slaughter of children. I have never been able to understand how we can evaluate life on this principle, especially as most soldiers in the world are conscript.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Yes. Taken out of context, he's justifying killing anyone over 18. Taken in context, he's saying it's Ok to kill anyone over 18.

About as charming as a dead mouse in a loaf of bread.

---

I am not interested in wether or not he is charming, simply that the when the public record is being put into use to serve the purposes of arguement that people are not libeled. Mis-stating someones opinion, or libeling them is not that charming either, in my view.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Unless you are calling anyone who contrives to rationally explain the development of suicide bombing in its socio-historic context (as we would try to understand the development of fascism, or the spread of a disease or social ill) an apologist for the bombers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I don't really care myself as I think the whole civilian/soldier paradigm is simply a legal justification for the slaughter of children. I have never been able to understand how we can evaluate life on this principle, especially as most soldiers in the world are conscript.

---

Kind of an interesting argument by itself. On one extreme is the assumption that there will always be war, so its evils should be minimized (including killing civilians). The argument is that without that you have only two states: war and peace, and war means using every weapon at your disposal to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible.

The other extreme says that in practice no one pays attention to it until afterwards (both Allies and Axis powers bombed civilians during WW2 for instance without any charges being brought up).

quote:

---

Thousands of people shouting “God is Great!” marched through a southern Pakistan city on Thursday and burned effigies of the Danish prime minister in the country’s fourth day of protests over cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, police said.

---

Huh? Wha?? Cartoons??

I think they need a few babblers to help them understand that they're not really protesting any silly cartoons... they just think they are.

quote:

---

Ameer ul-Azeem, a spokesman for United Action Forum, an opposition coalition of religious parties that have organized most of the protests in Pakistan, said television footage of violent attacks by protesters on embassies in other countries had prompted Pakistanis to do the same.

He appealed for people to avoid violence in more demonstrations the coalition plans for later this month, but didn’t expect people to follow his advice. “At least, there will be one violent protest in every village, town and city,” he said.

---