Peaceful Muslim Protests in Toronto and Montreal

[Jersay]

MONTREAL (CP) - Chanting their love for Muhammad, about 300 Muslims gathered near McGill University on Saturday to protest against caricatures of their prophet.

The protest coincided with another demonstration in Toronto that attracted about 1,300 people and several others across Europe against the cartoons, which have sparked deadly violence in some cases.

"We're here today to let the world know one thing: We want to be heard and we won't be labelled," said Said Jazeri, the imam of the Al-Qods mosque, which organized the protest.

"We are not savages, we are not barbarians," Jazeri said.

While the protest was peaceful, leaders of many Muslim groups in Montreal urged their members not to participate in the protest because they feared it would turn violent. Instead, they opened mosques to the public.

The protesters also decided to stay away from the nearby Danish consulate to diminish the chances of violence.

Jazeri, eyeing about 50 people held a counter-protest on the other side of the street in favour of freedom of speech, added: "I advise all my brothers to keep calm and not respond to provocations."

About 25 police officers kept a watch over the protest and arrested a man who was shouting profanities against Islam.

Riots have broken out around the world in recent weeks during protests against the cartoons that first appeared in a Danish newspaper last September.

Many in the crowd were still angry that the cartoons were re-published last week by several European newspapers trying to make a point about freedom of speech.

"This is because someone has touched our holy things," said Iraqi immigrant Soad Reda, who was flanked by her twin nine-year-old daughters holding up passages from the Koran.

"Nobody has (the right) to touch his life or his history," she said.

"That makes us very nervous. If they touch our prophet, one day we will touch your prophet."

Mohammed Rahmaoui, who addressed the crowd by loudspeaker, added: "Your democracy says that everyone must live in peace. So all the Muslims here in Quebec and Canada are here to live with you in peace."

"But we will never accept, please, any insults against the Prophet."

Another participant in the protest also denounced terrorism and America.

"We also want to denounce al-Qaida, this nightmare created by American imperialism to justify its economic empire on the planet."

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n021115A.xml

And i am glad that it was a peaceful protest, even though some racist shit heads tried to cause trouble claming free speech in Montreal. The Muslim community showed that it would not lower itself to the level of the guys who were counter-protesting.

So all good on the Canadian Muslim front, and did everyone know that a boycott is taking place in some Canadian stores of Danish items and goods. I think it is good.

 

[gopher]

Peaceful protests - that's a great way to bring about meaningful change!

 

[Jersay]

Peaceful protests - that's a great way to bring about meaningful change!

In a way yes. Because, instead of stooping to the level that mostly everyone and the racist buggers that tried to demonstrate against Canada's Muslims community, they showed they were better then that and should be heard and treated equally, and it dents any Islamophobia that might have been growing in Canada

 

[Colpy]

And i am glad that it was a peaceful protest, even though some racist shit heads tried to cause trouble

I hope the racist shithead you speak of is the one quoted below:

"Nobody has (the right) to touch his life or his history," she said.

"That makes us very nervous. If they touch our prophet, one day we will touch your prophet."

 

[Jersay]

"Nobody has (the right) to touch his life or his history," she said.

"That makes us very nervous. If they touch our prophet, one day we will touch your prophet."

So?

 

[Colpy]

I too am glad the protests were peaceful, the Muslims certainly have every right to protest peacefully.

BUT, the protest just shows how little they understand the very rights they are exercising.....freedom of speech and freedom to protest.

 

[Colpy]

"Nobody has (the right) to touch his life or his history," she said.

"That makes us very nervous. If they touch our prophet, one day we will touch your prophet."

So?

We have every right to "touch" Muhammed's life and history any time we please, thank you very much.

 

[Jersay]

BUT, the protest just shows how little they understand the very rights they are exercising.....freedom of speech and freedom to protest.

You know this is what I don't get.

Now, Christian papers can't publish anything anti-Jewish, or in the case of the Danish paper, anything anti-Christian because it will upset people.

So how come they get ot publish things, in this case cartoons that insult Muslims.

Now I think all newspapers, especially the ones in the Middle East and in Europe should step back from publishing anything that criticizes or de-humaninizes a religion.

That isn't a huge curtail in Freedom of Speech. And I can't wait till the Canadian government passes that Islamophobia is a crime, which they have agreed to do, which might make those cartoons illegal.

Back to the point, there is a fine line between Freedom of Speech and being racist. And boundaries have to be set, because Freedom of Speech doesn't mean certain things should be allowed to be said or written about anyone.

 

[Jersay]

We have every right to "touch" Muhammed's life and history any time we please, thank you very much.

No you don't.

If you want them to respect you. You respect them. And if that means you can't do bigoted things involving cartoons about Muhammed then that is tough luck.

 

[gopher]

"Freedom of Speech doesn't mean certain things should be allowed to be said or written about anyone. "


When our Founding Fathers established the Constitution, there were criminal libel laws in the USA. For years after the Bill of Rights were enacted, people were still being arrested under those statutes. Luckily, they were eventually done away with.

 

[Colpy]

We have every right to "touch" Muhammed's life and history any time we please, thank you very much.

No you don't.

If you want them to respect you. You respect them. And if that means you can't do bigoted things involving cartoons about Muhammed then that is tough luck.

Absolutely WRONG!

If "Piss Christ" (an "art work" consisting of a crucifix floating in a bottle of urine) is exceptable, even in a government supported show, then depictions of the Prophet doing whatever are fully acceptable.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.

Offensive speech is exactly what must be allowed.

If speech offends nobody, then why do we need a right to free speech?

We don't.

Speech that offends is exactly what it is necessary to protect.

 

[Jersay]

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.

Offensive speech is exactly what must be allowed.

If speech offends nobody, then why do we need a right to free speech?

We don't.

Speech that offends is exactly what it is necessary to protect.

You know that's funny.

That's what the Nazi's said.

So we are suppose to listen to offensive shit that breeds intolernace of other people. I don't think so.

 

[jimmoyer]

Pretty sloppy understanding of the Nazi allowance
of offensive free speech, Jersay.

 

[Jersay]

Pretty sloppy understanding of the Nazi allowance
of offensive free speech, Jersay.

Not sloppy, simplified version I think.

 

[Colpy]

Sorry, that's bullshit.

Weimar Germany had laws that forbade hate crimes.

Didn't do them a lot of good, did it?

AND the Nazis never defended their views in the way you say, they never admitted their views could possibly be offensive.

AND your tender ears need not listen to any view you don't like.........but I still have a right to express any view I choose.

You are SUCH a typical lefty.....your definition of freedom seems to be : "You have every right to free speech....as long as you agree with me"

 

[Jersay]

Now the Weimar Republic had laws to stop stuff like that agreed. And it didn't help them, but with the Weimar republic, they also had the allowal of the peaceful organization of people and the police couldn't do anything about it.

So the NAZI's could use this to spout their offensive propoganda, but they were peaceful so the police couldn't do anything about it.

-----------

Not if it is against the law. You can't express a viewpoint if it is against the law.

 

[jimmoyer]

Yada yada yada, you've mealy mouthed the point.

 

[Jersay]

Is this what happens when right-wing people have nothing to say.

 

[sanch]

As I understand it the cartoons were initially published to break away from the naval gazing and self censorship that applied to publishing Islamic subject material. People of Muslim background have been very successful through fatwas and assassinations and general threats in intimidating writers, artists and the press in Europe. The intention of the Danish newspaper in publishing the cartoons was to no longer bow to that intimidation.

So the cartoonists went to work and created cartoons which they must have thought reflected the public face of Islam in some way. The Saudis and other rich Muslims have for years financed militant Islam and to many it is this dominant view of Islam that defines the religion. A lot of moderates even though they may have disagreed with this warlike image decided quietly to go along for the ride. Now they are offended. But they are the ones who allowed with very little objection for the image of Mohammed to be tampered with. The cartoons were not created in a vacuum.

The image of the Christian God and Jesus has also been tarred and transformed in its association with activities contrary to those in the scriptures. June Nash wrote a book about Bolivian tin miners and in it she described the God—the Christian God—the miners left offerings for and prayed to before entering the dangerous mines. He was white skinned and wore a cowboy hat and had a cigarette between his lips. The Marlboro man as Jesus Christ.

Now if cartoonists want to depict God as a fat cat sitting on stacks of hundred dollar bills and counting his stocks options with one hand and firing a machine gun with another that would also be a justifiable reflection of a current image of God. Should moderate Christians be upset if something like this was published? No. Would it be an insult to their faith? No

 

[I think not]

The ability to speak one's mind, to challenge the political and religious orthodoxies of the times, to criticize the policies of the government without fear of recrimination by the state is the essential distinction between life in a free country and in a dictatorship. And we have young men and women that advocate "responsible freedom of speech". Where has the West gone wrong?