It begins: the attempt to impose dhimmi laws forbidding non-Muslims to insult Islam or Muhammad upon the West, via multiculturalist hate speech laws. From CTV.ca, with thanks to all who sent this in:
The publisher of a Calgary-based magazine is defending his decision to reprint eight cartoon depictions of Islam's Prophet Muhammad today....Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant called the caricatures "innocuous," and said he's "ashamed" that more Canadian media outlets, including CTV, have chosen not to run them....
On CTV Newsnet, Levant said although Islam forbids depictions of its Prophet, "I don't follow Muslim law, I follow Queen Elizabeth's law.
"I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution and there are two key parts to the Canadian constitution I'm relying on: one is freedom of expression and the other is cultural diversity (enshrined in) the Constitution."
'What do they contribute?'
But Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, warned on Sunday that his organization will seek to have charges laid against Levant's publication under Canada's hate laws.
And Tarek Fatah, of the Muslim Canadian Congress, called Levant's decision to publish "totally unnecessary and provocative."
"If the contention of these folks is that people want to see these cartoons, they're available across the Web," Fatah told CTV Newsnet. "So the intention is not to inform the readers about the cartoons, but it is primarily to incite and add fuel to the fire."
Fatah said he believes newspapers have a democratic right to publish the cartoons, but said doing so would only add to the pain felt by Muslims around the world.
"All I ask them is, what do they contribute? What exactly are they trying to achieve out of that? Have they not seen the turmoil that has been caused by the repeated publication of these cartoons?"
Levant, meanwhile, asks why society finds it more acceptable to poke fun of the Christian faith, before pointing to a recent cover of Rolling Stone magazine which shows hip hop artist Kanye West made up to look like Jesus.
I do not see anything hateful about the cartoons.
"totally unnecessary and provocative."
So are they going to burn the Canadian flag?
Control immigration of those sensitive cry-babies who are offended if an infidel breathes.
CTV Newsnet just reported that Calgary police have already said there's no basis for laying charges against the paper. I'm not surprised, since the narrow provisions of Canada's hate speech laws would not encompass these cartoons. Still, Levant is going to face a storm. I applaud him for his and his paper's stance.
Mohamed Elmasry said: "So the intention is not to inform the readers about the cartoons, but it is primarily to incite and add fuel to the fire.
"If the contention of these folks is that people want to see these cartoons, they're available across the Web," Fatah told CTV Newsnet. "So the intention is not to inform the readers about the cartoons, but it is primarily to incite and add fuel to the fire.""
I hope that when this case will be presented to the Suprem Court of Canada, he will do a better job at building an argument than this.
Firstly, muslims are not forced to be exposed to the cartoons, since they are published by an independant newspaper. Therefore, if there is turmoil, it is because they chose to, it is of their own freewill. But then, how is he going to prove that the muslim uproar over the cartoon was indeed righteous? By the quality of the offended belief? Of course not: religious belief have the same worth than thspecial protection, or if they do, that special protection need to be applied to ALL religions, which is not acceptable, even in multicultural Canada. Then, do we mesure the worth of a belief by the quantity of people believing in it? That wouldn't make sense either: like the great french philosopher Coluche once said, "it is not because they're all wrong, that they're all right!" The revolt they choosed to have over the cartoons, was it legitimate? wasn't it at odd with our conception of individuality and freedom? Good luck to Mr. Elmasry to prove all that.
And he attack the legitimacy of the newspaper with the fact that the cartoons are already present elsewhere, in the Internet. So, in the end, the entire argument of mr. Elmasry is merely a procès d'intention against those who would publish the cartoons. As such, he would have to prove that it is out of hate, and not simply to make a statement for free speech, that the newspaper published the cartoons.
He would have to actualy prove that those cartoons are actualy hateful, and not mere satyre pointing out the existing link between islam and terrorism.
I wish mr. And finaly, whatever laws he would have applied to protect muslims, he would have to justify and explain why Jews and Christians need no such laws in the first place. A double-standard between muslims and people of judéo-christian faith wouldn't be tolerated, especialy in our judeophile society.
I wish mr. Elmastry good luck with all that: his argument may hold water in the Lands of No Logic, but not in reality, and not even in Canada. I really do hope he will bring this to the Supreme Court, to decide the matter once and for all.
Not being an expert on Canada's hate laws, I would nonetheless presume it exists only as an exception to the guaranteed right of free speech (as does defamation), that the hate would need to be coupled with intent and the likelihood of imminent harm, and monetary damages incurred by the affected person(s)caused by the hate speech would need to be proved. Under US law, there is no hate speech law per se, Illinois Nazis still have a right to march in Skokie and loony leftist can still decry Bush as the evilest (stooopid, yes) man in the world.
"but said doing so would only add to the pain felt by Muslims around the world."
I feeeeeeel your paiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
Did you smile when you heard the pain of BERG having his head sawed off while he was alive? HIS PAIN WAS FELT BY THE CIVILIZED PEOPLE OF THE WORLD!
Did you smile when you heard the pain of PEARL having his head sawed off while he was alive? HIS PAIN WAS FELT BY THE CIVILIZED PEOPLE OF THE WORLD! HIS PREGNANT WIFE WAS FULL OF PAIN!
Did you smile when you read about the three CHRISTIAN teenage girls having their heads sawed off on their way to school? THEIR LITTLE SLAIN BODIES AFFECTED THE PEOPLE OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD WHO STILL ACTUALLY FEEL!
Did you smile and dance in the streets when 9/11 happened and young men and women chose to jump rather than to burn to death? THEIR PAIN WAS FELT BY THOSE WHO ARE CIVILIZED IN THE WORLD!
So when you actually join the CIVILIZED WORLD and actually can tell the difference between LOVE and DEATH.....only then will I give a flying camel whether you FEEL hurt about CARTOONS you sorry piece of trash!
"but said doing so would only add to the pain felt by Muslims around the world."
I feeeeeeel your paiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!
Did you smile when you heard the pain of BERG having his head sawed off while he was alive? HIS PAIN WAS FELT BY THE CIVILIZED PEOPLE OF THE WORLD!
Did you smile when you heard the pain of PEARL having his head sawed off while he was alive? HIS PAIN WAS FELT BY THE CIVILIZED PEOPLE OF THE WORLD! HIS PREGNANT WIFE WAS FULL OF PAIN!
Did you smile when you read about the three CHRISTIAN teenage girls having their heads sawed off on their way to school? THEIR LITTLE SLAIN BODIES AFFECTED THE PEOPLE OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD WHO STILL ACTUALLY FEEL!
Did you smile and dance in the streets when 9/11 happened and young men and women chose to jump rather than to burn to death? THEIR PAIN WAS FELT BY THOSE WHO ARE CIVILIZED IN THE WORLD!
So when you actually join the CIVILIZED WORLD and actually can tell the difference between LOVE and DEATH.....only then will I give a flying camel whether you FEEL hurt about CARTOONS you sorry piece of trash!
Tarek Fata says:"....doing so(printing the cartoons)only add to the pain Muslims felt around the world".
So this President of the Muslim Canadian Congress is only worried about the Muslim pain.He is supposed to be more moderate Muslim,compared to Dr. Elemisery. But ,deep inside,all are of the same pond.
Will Tarek know about the pain,when Muslims openly say in Western countries, that Christian Bible is all lies and corrupted?
Will Tarek know about the Christian's pain when Muslims openly declare that Jesus is not the Son of God,but a Prophet,inferior to Mohamed?
Will Tarek know the pain of Christians,that after mercilesly murdering sixty innocent sub-way travellers in London, Muslims protesting with plea cards which states'Behead "."kill","slay" to our Christian brethern?
Will Tarek know the pain,when Muslims,while enjoying all the benefits of free speech,freedom,equal treatment,superior style of living,and all the benifits, in the Christian countries can offer, and in return only give hatred,pain,insult to our culture and faith in return?
Will Tarek tell me,if the same thing as above is done in a Muslim country,will they tolerate christians? Their heads will be rolling . As it is ,Christians are treated like Dogs in Islamic countries.
But Tarek, now we are slowly realising the real schemes against us, the non-Islamic world. Every body in the West has awaken,and more vigilant. Tarek,forget about Your peoples' dream of Islamisation of the whole world.
Mark Steyn on "blow-up doll rage". Yes, really.
It wouldn't do to swallow everything Mark Steyn comes out with, for example, the assertion that the British like lame sex gags. Still, he makes a good point. Muslims have an inflated sense of their own importance, and this needs a prick or two.
This sums it all up:
"I don't follow Muslim law, I follow Queen Elizabeth's law. I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution and there are two key parts to the Canadian constitution I'm relying on: one is freedom of expression and the other is cultural diversity (enshrined in) the Constitution."
It really is that simple. Only fools and panderers will pretend to not understand.
Where do these Muslims feel the pain?
Canada, it is time to ease the pain of all the muslims living there, politely request that they leave and go back to where they came from. Then maybe they will not feel the pain of living in a secular society.
When is this pain going to end. Each week a new pain starts so its never ending.Its like a terminal illness, seems to go on from one pain to another. The west does not have a remedy to ease the pain of Muslims, other than ask them to leave and go back to where they came from. The west can do well without all this pain.
I keep asking this question;
Why do muslims see the cartoon that represents Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head as a negative caricature?
Are not suicide bombers revered as heroes, martyrs, or shaheeds in Islam?
And if this is the case than shouldn't Mohammed be setting a great example for those that wish to be heroes, martyrs, or shaheeds.
After all, are they all not following the teachings of Mohammed or am I missing something here?
As kj says, that's all there's to say about this whole insanity. We are not Muslim. We do not have to follow Muslim blasphemy laws. Denmark is not a Muslim country, so it's ridiculous that Muslims think they have the right to tell Denmark and other non-Muslim countries what they can and cannot do.
rumoret, they don't feel our pain, never will. We are nothing to them. Filthy kafir, rated the same as excrement and urine. There is a disconnect there, in their hearts and minds. They feel no compassion, respect or anything at all towards non-Muslims.
Publisher Ezra Levant tonight, when asked on CBC Radio why he would want to publish the cartoons which would likely incite more violent demonstations, said something along the line of: "The cartoons are not the problem; cartoons do not fly off the page and torch embassies -- the reaction of Muslims is the problem."
He also fearlessly criticized the CBC and other Canadian media, which he said usually didn't hesitate to tackle controversial subjects, even those which are offensive to some religions, for "caving in" on this issue at the first threat of violent repercussions.
From the Western Standard's own blog site:
________________________
What we believe
EZRA LEVANT
Calgary Sun
Early this morning, 40,000 copies of the Western Standard magazine, of which I am publisher, rolled off the presses. The cover story is about government lobbyists and corruption.
But in the middle of the magazine, we have a two-page discussion about the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. These are the cartoons that caused riots overseas.
In our magazine's news judgment, you can't properly report that story without showing the cartoons. So we're publishing eight of the cartoons. As far as I am aware, that makes the Western Standard the first large-circulation publication in the country to reprint them.
As our readers will see, most of the cartoons are innocuous; several nothing more than stylized portraits, including quite a handsome one.
It seems absurd that such a banal journalistic act would be taboo. We're not abnormal for printing the cartoons. Canada's other publications and TV stations are the abnormal ones for avoiding the subject at the centre of the largest story of the week.
It's not hard to understand. It's a potential hassle, and publishers aren't in the hassle business -- publishers are in the money-making business.
Anything that could cause subscriptions to be cancelled or advertisers to be scared off is dangerous to the bottom line. And then there is the risk of violence. What publisher needs that? That's fair. Freedom of the press can mean the right to ignore a story, too.
But I believe Canadian publishers and TV producers have not been fully candid about the choice they've all made. Not a single publisher, editor or reporter has admitted they have blocked the cartoons for fear of an economic backlash. Perhaps none of them thought about lost business when they made their decision. But if any did, they probably wouldn't admit it -- that would make them seem like callow, profit-driven commercial journalists, and that's contrary to the careful image the media has cultivated as being somehow more noble or idealistic than other industries.
And none of them have admitted what we all know is true, at least a little bit: That these riots are scary.
They're scarier than any letter-writing campaign or boycott or protest rally that has occurred in recent memory.
Journalists and other artists have been killed by Muslim radicals. Several of the Danish cartoonists are in hiding, for fear of assassination. This is really happening.
In fact, the official excuse has been that TV producers, publishers and editors don't want to offend religious sensibilities. But this isn't credible. Not a day goes by when the mainstream media doesn't offend the religious sensibilities of religious Christians, Jews or others. The media doesn't care about religious sensibilities -- it is militantly secular. But it has made an exception for the sensibilities of one religion that is quick to riot and behead its critics.
The most laughable excuse -- especially from the liberal, secular media like the CBC or CNN -- is that they "respect" Islam too much. Really? They respect a religion opposed to feminism, gay rights and abortion?
The liberal media doesn't respect radical Islam. It is afraid of radical Islam.
I'm afraid, too. A little bit at least. But courage isn't the absence of fear. It's not letting fear trump everything else -- like character or duty or our own beliefs.
The Western Standard has no explaining to do. We're a news magazine, and these cartoons are news. The publishers, editors and TV producers who are behaving as if they live under sharia law, not the Charter of Rights, have explaining to do -- to their readers and viewers.
Posted by Western Standard on February 13, 2006 at 01:36 PM
_____________
I applaud Mr. Levant's courage.
People seem to deliberately or very stupidly misinterpret anti-hate laws. The idea is to prevent the publisher inciting people into attacking the group maligned by the publication. So if neo-nazi groups had been fired up by the cartoons to burn mosques and threaten to decapitate muslims, then there might be something for a court case.
But talking about the cartoons provoking mulims into attacking us is like saying that it's OK to hit someone just because they tease you.
What Islamicists fail to understand is that by crybabying this issue up so much they are attracting more and more attention to the basic question:
-what are they trying to cover up?
And the answer is "Mohammad".
Which will bring more and more in the West to their first confrontation with this pedophile warlord in all of his historical glory.
Islam would have been better served by keeping quiet.
Once people learn about the true nature of this violent "prophet", their patience with the supposed "offense" will pale.
But, from my perspective, I want more attention drawn to this lying 7th century despot, terrorist, plagiarist and thief.
So, thank you Islam for opening so many eyes.
Schmucks.
Bravo, EZRA LEVANT you are a true journalist and defender of Canada's freedom. I wish that we had more people like you.
God bless you! You have won a big victory with your eloquent response to the other cowardly journalists.
"So the intention is not to inform the readers about the cartoons, but it is primarily to incite and add fuel to the fire."
So, why get incited????? Do you have a choice or are you preprogrammed idiots?
March peacefeully against it whatever, but this is not hate speeach. Ugh!!
Interested writes:
"It wouldn't do to swallow everything Mark Steyn comes out with, for example, the assertion that the British like lame sex gags. Still, he makes a good point. Muslims have an inflated sense of their own importance, and this needs a prick or two."
I don't know whether to say "you're terrible!" or
salute you by bowing and saying "I'm not worthy"
;-)
I don't follow Muslim law, I follow Queen Elizabeth's law. I don't follow the Koran, I follow the Canadian Constitution
Given that Prince Charles may one day be King, I'd have kept Queen Elizabeth out of it. Especially given that the Queen doesn't make the laws.
Hats of for this "Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant! l know one in Western Canada would act like true feedom loving Canadian should! Western Canada spearheaded our new Prime Minister! Lets hope we can piss off more muslims!
As yet another exponent of the draw-string theory of Muslim atrocities--that is, that non-Muslims pull the draw-string that sends Muslims into uncontrollable rage--Tarek Fatah has disappointed me. Again, How can we trust "moderate Muslims"? Fatah opposed sharia laws in Ontario. Now he is showing sympathy for Islamic blasphemy law and blaming the cartoonists and the publishers. Sure he has condemned the violent response, but here he justifies it using the usual excuses that hard-core Islamists use. They say "We're violent only because they provoke us."
BTW, why is "sensitivity to cultural diversity" invoked to criticize those who published the cartoons, but is not invoked to criticize those who threaten to kill?
Inflammatory? Absolutely! To paraphrase Ayan Hirsi Ali, the only way to promote Islamic reform is to get Muslims to cast a critical eye on the faith. The rest of the world does it all of the time -- to "over done" in some cases.
Ezra Levant, however, is a bit of a twit, or was when he was younger. My memory isn't able to retrieve a rather embarrassing story about Ezra (when he was a Reform party political activist, if I recall) from back in the early 90s.
Anyway, I hope age has given Ezra the smarts to pull this one off. El-Masry could be walking into exactly the trap that Levant intended to set for him.
Lisa & Boxter:
The hate crime legislation in Canada is quite specific and doesn't prosecute "thought crimes" so to speak.
""Hate" is defined as a crime under two parts of Canada’s Criminal Code: sections 318 and 319. To convict anyone under the Code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn’t enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the Code exactly, and if they did it deliberately."
Section 318: Advocating Genocide
"The criminal act of "advocating genocide" is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an "identifiable group" — persons distinguished by their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. The intention or motivation would be the destruction of members of the targeted group. Any person who promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."
Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred
"The crime of "publicly inciting hatred" has four main elements. To contravene the 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. "
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm
I'm just as concerned that the largest bookstore chain in Canada (owened by Heather Reisman) has decided to not carry this issue as has Air Canada.
This quote also shows the real intent behind the Canadian Islamic Congress:
"The Muslim activist said a complaint would also be filed against another Jewish newspaper, Western Standard, for reprinting the cartoons."
"Right. The Western Standard is Canada's only conservative magazine. But "Jewish"?? Well, the publisher, Ezra Levant, is Jewish. So what?"
http://relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/02/gaffe-accidentally-revealing-what-you.html
Johnb,
thanks for that. Here is a bit more from 319(3):
-----------------------------
"Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:
are established to be true
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
were expressed in good faith,
it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
were expressed in good faith,
it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada"
------------------------
Regarding that last point, I take that to mean that even the newspapers who argued that the cartoons should not be shown could have presented the cartoons to demonstrate why they should not be shown further (i.e., why they are objectionable).
In any case, even the most objectionable cartoon contains an important element of truth. The linkage between suicide bombing and Islam is true, as established by Islamists themselves today, and by the prophet Mohammad's own statements in praise of martyrdom. The claim is not that all Muslims support suicide bombng. The claim is that some Islamists have made this association (that's what the cartoonist himself said about his intended meaning). And even if one does not accept the truth of that claim...
...the cartoons were presented in good faith, in attempting to establish by argument an opinion on a religious matter.
Archimedes:
Thanks for the addition and clarification. I quoted the legislation from the Justice Department's website a couple of weeks ago but a quick Google search didn't turn it up this time.
BTW- here is a great Aislin cartoon in today's Montreal Gazette - it's the Little Mermaid covered in a burqua:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/aislin/index.html
Thank you all for your support. I subscribe to this magazine (not a newspaper) and it is the only thing that takes a stance on anything. They had indepth sharia coverage that CBC (communist broadcasting control) didn't.
They now have an annual cruise, I'm going, are you?
I think it interesting that Canada (being what it is) is pro-Muslim. During the Cold War Communism took the side of Muslims against Israel (because it's Jews), and USA took the side of Israel. Because of this, USSR saw USA as more Jews, percolating this idea down to the masses (ie. Muslims). Now we are dealing with the Communist masses, en masse.
Ezra Levant reviews about 3 books a month in the magazine, last month he reviewed "Legacy of Jihad" by Andrew Bostom. Before that he reviewed "Real Mao", which is a new bio. He said that now Trudeau's "love letters" have been released, we can see how fargone Canada really is.
Ezra Levant= The only "REAL" man with a back-bone in Canada. I was offended when the Muslims said that " USA,and Canada never published the cartoons,and that shows they respect our Prophet Mohamed"
The real fact is quite contray.It was the knuckle shivering dailies,and the media like CNN,Toronto Star (Canada),which not only refused to print those cartoons,but pin pionted those, who have a brave heart to print it.
Toronto Star's religious page editor Tim Harpour goes on writing demeaning articles about christianity. He writes that Jesus is an ordianry human like us,with no divinity in him. The Christians are keeping quiet,and this paper(Toronto Star) acts like a saint in this Mohamed Cartoon affairs.
I hope more and more Ezras blosom in Canada and in USA.
In any case, even the most objectionable cartoon contains an important element of truth.
[...]
Posted by: Archimedes at February 14, 2006 01:36 PM
Archimedes:
Would you include the "cartoons" of Jews that appear in Arab/Muslim media among those that contain an important element of truth, e.g.: the recent Iranian cartoons that included one of Hitler in bed with Anne Frank and asking her if that was going to make her diary?
There's a vast difference between cartoons mildly rebuking Muslims for claiming that acts of terror are sanctioned by God or that their self-appointed prophet is anything more than a human being who rose to incredible notariety and "cartoons" that characterize an entire identifiable group of people as bloodsucking perpetrators of infanticide against their enemies based on a litany of lies.
So, yes, there is a line to be drawn somewhere, but not where so many "self-wrongeously indignant" Muslims think it should be drawn.
waterdragon,
As far as a moral line, I have no problem whatsoever in saying that (a) the Mohammad-bomb cartoon has a basis in fact and was morally justified and (b) Hitler in bed with Anne Frank has no basis in fact and was not morally justified. I have commented precisely on this topic previously.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010188.php#c175858
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010080.php#c172387
1. Hitler-Anne Frank cartoon is a falsity, concocted entirely for the purpose of offending Jews. The intent of the artist is important. It has no educational purpose.
2. However, if we wanted to show this same cartoon to say "Here is an example of the kind of anti-Semitism that is rampant in Islamic countries," then I think it could be shown in that context, perhaps with an age restriction on the viewer.
In light of the above 4 conditions from 319(3), I believe that the Islamist's portrayal of Hitler-Anne Frank in bed is not in good faith, and is untrue. However, presenting that same cartoon as an example of Islamic anti-Semitism is true, is in good faith, and does serve the purpose of educating the public on this topic.
Now, if we had not allowed the Islamist to show the cartoon in the first place, we would not have been alerted to this anti-Semitism. (To extend this point, if a ban were put on all such hateful expressions, we would not know how deep and wide the anti-Semitism runs). Therefore, we must let the Islamists produce this hatred for us to see, in order that we may preserve our ability to have some indications of what the Islamists are thinking, what the Muslim response is to such cartoons, and, most importantly, for us to be able to present that information to the public to say "Look what the Islamists are doing now. This is another example of anti-Semitism." It's evidence. Personally, if someone hates me, I'd prefer to know about it. The important caveat is that, wherever the Islamists produce an anti-Semitic cartoon, there must be the secondary procedure in place whereby we can show/frame the cartoon with disapproval as anti-Semitic. This cannot be done under the Islamic regimes (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia), precisely where such disapproval of anti-Semitism is needed most. In Canada, we should allow the expressions of hate to be presented for the purposes of educating people about that hate. That is, there are some cases where allowing expressions of hate to occur serves a greater good. (Witness, for example, the publication of the British Islamist radicals' signs saying "Exterminate Europeans," "Behead those who Insult Islam," etc. I suggest that sites such as JW/DW serve the purpose of educating the public by relaying this information. The Islamists think they are instilling fear in the public so that the public will cower and accept their terms. JW/DW is trying to alert the public to a healthy fear so that they may counter the goals of the jihadists and sharia enthusiasts).
Some Muslims may make the same argument, as I just have, in justifying the Danish imams' presentation of the cartoons to the Mohammad cartoons to the Middle Eastern imams. But there are important differences. First, the original intent of the Mohammad cartoons was different than that of the original intent of the anti-Semitic cartoons (as I've pointed out). Second, the intent of the imams was different than the intent of western publishers who wanted to publish the cartoons. The imams knew that the penalty for the cartoonists would be death. They know their religion. They went to the Middle Eastern imams with the full knowledge of what actions they might be setting in motion against the cartoonists and Denmark. Simply, they were trying to punish Danes, to bring them under some version of Islamic blasphemy law. In contrast, the Danish cartoonists and most of the publishers of those cartoons were making a statement that we will not submit to Islamic law and, at the same time, educating the public.
What all this comes down to is this: Which is more morally acceptable: Islamic Blasphemy Law (which involves killing or very harsh penalty), or our western notion of freedom of expression with certain caveats and restrictions? The Danish cartoon controversy has revealed a fault-line that divides the majority of Muslims from the majority of the western world. This is yet another benefit of having published the cartoons: It has exposed a division that Muslim apologists and PC news media and politicians have been trying to deny since 9/11.
A similar example makes the same point. Ignoring context, one could argue that it is wrong to publish the Koran, because its main purpose was, and is, to instill hatred against non-Muslims. However, I do not think the Koran should be banned, because it is imperative that we have access to the book so that we may expose this dangerous Islamic intolerance to the public. In other words, presenting something bad (Koran) can do a greater good (alert and educate the public), if it is done properly with the right intention.
"1. Hitler-Anne Frank cartoon is a falsity, concocted entirely for the purpose of offending Jews. The intent of the artist is important. It has no educational purpose."
Excuse me. I should add, the cartoons were also done for the purpose of perverse glee of Islamists who share the anti-Semitic sentiment, plus for the hate-indoctrination of Muslims living in those states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.).
Canada has a big problem.
Canada, and Toronto especially, hosts a huge number
of Muslim immigrants (especially from Pakistan).
This represents a very serious security problem
for the US, as Canadian citizens can enter the US
without a visa.
Look for Canada to become (if it is not already)
a major terrorist base. And dont count on the
Canadian political establisment to show any more
spine than their former rulers in the UK.
waterdragon,
In my original post, this statement
1. "In any case, even the most objectionable cartoon contains an important element of truth"
was immediately followed by this one
2. "The linkage between suicide bombing and Islam is true, as established by Islamists themselves today, and by the prophet Mohammad's own statements in praise of martyrdom."
The "most objectionable cartoon" refers to the Mohmmad-bomb cartoon, not to all possible cartoons. In any case, my long-winded response above summarizes my views on offensive cartoons.
As the Moslems succesfully implement Sharia free speech constraints on the West with the cartoon flap the past month... it is important to remember that the very concept of "hate crimes" is an affront to due process and equal justice.
Our future masters, the Moslems, look at these Liberal-inspired criminal statutes and see the gold plated credit card to continue ramming Sharia into place, pillar-by-pillary, one whiney demonstration after the next.
waterdragon52 & Archimedes,
The Anne Frank cartoon actually underscores another comparison. Even though Hitler was the epitome of evil, there is no evidence that he sexually molested underage girls like the cartoon implied.
The one who should be shown in bed with an underage girl? That would be Muhammed!