Muslims Sue Over Cartoons

[Curiosity]

FiveParadox

What kind of person would be acceptable and fully politically correct for the free speech cartoon or lampoon in the media?

I think the only "safe" non adversarial cartoons are those of white politicians.

Certainly violation of what is conceived as freedom of speech is controversial when cartoons appear of anything but this very restricted group. Therefore it makes me wonder if there is really such a concept of freedom of speech in our society - not pure freedom or unrestricted freedom if there are complaints and violence.

And restricted freedom is an oxymoron. You start placing caveats on any intellectual property for public consumption and you chip away at freedom.

Is this what you are advocating?

 

[Mogz]

RE: Muslims Sue Over Cart

This is not a human rights issue. Religion does not equate to a persons right to live. This whole "poor muslim" spin on Western society is so tired.

 

[Jay]

(a) I think that the cartoons were published in extremely poor taste; however, I do not think that the publishing of these cartoons violated the reasonable limits on freedom of speech in a free and democratic society.

Why not take the word freedom out of the post....I'll demonstrate.

"a) I think that the cartoons were published in extremely poor taste; however, I do not think that the publishing of these cartoons violated the reasonable limits on speech in democratic society"

 

[FiveParadox]

Wednesday's Child, I am advocating for the use of responsible free speech which, more or less, Canada has shown quite a penchant for. We do not have problems with crossing reasonable limits very often, nor has it happened in modern times to any serious degree. Citizens must, I repeat, must have the right to protest — if citizens do not have the right to assemble and protest, even if they are protesting what they see as an inappropriate exercise of those same rights, then our safeguards are no longer effective.

 

[Curiosity]

Perhaps I have seen too much....

Protests turned into riots - parades turned into riots - these days kids are skipping school to protest when the only thing which will help them attain their goals is "staying in school"....

I have seen Jews - in religious and non-religious garb, I have seen Asian, Indian, Mexican, the Popes, Mother Teresa, nuns and priests, George Bush ad nauseum as well as almost every major politician on the planet, I have seen Queen E Two, I have seen Charles and yes Diana, mocked in lampoon....On a lesser level I have seen regular people in ugly sexual suggestive positions, when the camera has caught them in embarrassing positions....and rarely is anything done, much less protested. Why are Mullahs exempt?

Freedoms are very precious - fear is not and censorship from threats is ugly and useless.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Muslims Sue Over Cartoons

I am advocating for the use of responsible free speech which, more or less, Canada has shown quite a penchant for.

And who will say what is responible and what isn't?

 

[Jay]

I know, I know...ask me!

 

[FiveParadox]

I think not, I think I have answered this question before.

Members of our various superior and supreme courts, human rights commissions, and other judicial institutions are responsible for this daunting task; ultimately, the highest-authority on this matter would be the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C., the Chief Justice of Canada, and her Puisne Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

[I think not]

Wrong FiveParadox, the Supreme Court of Canada will listen to motions filed by various "groups" citing your Charter of Rights & Freedoms, in particular, the responsible free speech wording, and make a motion that for example, ITN publishes cartoons with Christ hung by his bollocks, and the Christian society will deem it to be offensive, hence irresponsible.

You want me to go on? When a group finds something offensive, you will see how soon you have nothing left to say.

 

[FiveParadox]

Heh, I love the attempts to invalidate my opinions. This is fun.

No, the final say, as the final arbiter, belongs to the Supreme Court of Canada. They make the ultimate decision as to whether one's use of their free speech has become irresponsible and therefore worthy of censure — no group can do this without the intervention of the Supreme Court.

 

[I think not]

It's even more amusing when your Court sets a precedent that they cannot back away from, you already have hate speech laws in place, nothing is far fetched.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think not, the Supreme Court of Canada didn't create our hate propaganda law in the Criminal Code of Canada — nor do they have any capacity to do so. The amendments to the Criminal Code that created our hate propaganda laws were created by our representatives in the House of Commons, and concurred in by the other components of Parliament. The Courts had nothing to do with them.

 

[I think not]

That is irrelevant though, the laws exist. Tell me Five, I know you like to leave everything up to the Supreme Court decision, which I can understand, but where will the line be drawn? Can't you see that responsible free speech as justified by a free and democratic society i sopen to a myriad of interpretations and exclusions by a group of people with biases? Can you not see that?

 

[FiveParadox]

Of course things are open to a myriad of interpretations; that is why they are left to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the need to make such a decision within the context of the Statutes of Canada. The Court is commissioned, in particular, for the purpose of interpreting our laws.

:!: Revision : Corrected a typing error.

 

[I think not]

The point I am trying to make is that responsible free speech in a free and democratic society is meant to provide limits as opposed to granting rights.

 

[FiveParadox]

I am not going to argue with you over that, I think not, I acknowledge and agree that hate propaganda laws were intended, and have done a good job of, preventing persons from abusing their freedom of speech in Canada.

 

[Curiosity]

Hello anyone reading this ...

The sentence ITN just wrote should be carved into our brains!

It is the delineating actual difference in what constitutes our freedoms...and their applications.

Much of the populations in our western world enjoy freedoms of which they have no concept.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Muslims Sue Over Cartoons

I am not going to argue with you over that, I think not, I acknowledge and agree that hate propaganda laws were intended, and have done a good job of, preventing persons from abusing their freedom of speech in Canada.

Well see how bias your opinion is, as is the case with everyone, what you deem as offensive, someone else doesn't, so you are not equal in the eyes of the law. It's really that simple.

Government should have no say with what one can or cannot say. The purpose of the government is to secure freedoms for its people, not restrict them.

 

[FiveParadox]

No, the purpose of the Government of Canada is to provide peace, order and good government — it has been a long-established practice in Canada, in terms of opinions of the House of Commons, and rulings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (and later, the Supreme Court of Canada) that the primary purpose of the Government is to ensure that peace and safety are secure; rights and freedoms tend to be a concern only after that peace and order are established.

 

[Jay]

We established that thanks....can we move on now?