Calgary paper runs cartoons

[I think not]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

I think not, such practices have since ceased.

Furthermore, I did not say that such rights and freedoms were at the discretion of the House of Commons or the Government of Canada; but rather, that they were at the discretion of the Supreme and Superior Courts of the Provinces and Territories, and the Supreme Court of Canada.

:!: Edit Resolved a formatting error.

They have ceased? I won't say anything else other than take a trip to Little Sisters bookstore and ask them how much it has ceased. What has been banned from Canada has not been allowed to be imported, nothing has ceased.

 

[FiveParadox]

I would maintain that, were these issues to be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, they would be resolved in favour of the bookstore and its desire to import such materials.

However, I am not well-versed on this subject; what legal actions have been taken on this matter to date? (This is not the topic at hand, so obviously I would not expect some long-winded explanation, lol, just a quick summary; I'm curious).

I apologize, I think not, if my assertion above was entirely incorrect.

 

[I think not]

I think the topic at hand is ultimately who gets a say in what free speech should be, and who has the authority to curtail it. When you start censoring free speech in favor of someone or group that gets offended, you will end up eventually blind, deaf and mute or hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

 

[FiveParadox]

In an ultimate sense, the decision of what "free speech" is and should be, and what constitutes free speech, and what comments or expression would be ultra vires that right, rest on the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada and a Privy Councillor for Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, in co-operation with the Puisne Justices.

Such is, in my opinion, the way it should be, unless otherwise explicitly indicated by the Constitution Acts — I would assert that the Court in Canada strives to protect the interests of its citizens (particularly those that would relate to the Charter and its provisions), and that we, as a society, should be grateful for the services they provide in striving to protect us from those who would abuse the right to free speech.

 

[neallo]

i support the danes. correct me if i am wrong
in palistine, they had a free election? right they did
hamas got majority. 78 seats out of 132
now hamas is a terrorists organization right? right
who's sole purpose is to destroy isreal? right
so when the the majority of the population votes for a terrorist group they support them.
so it is then fair to say that want isreal destroyed along with all of their population.
so we come to the saying that not all muslims are terrorists.
but when the majority of the population supports them, are they then not terrorist? or am i sterotyping?
am i?
so when i was born a white male is it my fault? no
when a colored person is segregated does he like it? no
so why then have the minority law? should jobs not go to tho's who are most qualified? do interviews have to be done personally or can they be done over the phone? out of 30 million people is this the best way we can come up for "minorities" to get a job?
now becuase i am a male i am declared most likely to get into a car accident. true
so instead of paying $78 a month i have to pay $200 a month for insurance all because i was born with a penis. now is that not sterotyping, seeing as how i have been driving for 2+ years and no accidents? o right i remember they called it a fact.

listen people the first thing we have to do is to istablish what is a fact and what is a sterotype, people need to start abmitting they are wrong, instead of pointing the finger in the other direction.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Calgary paper runs cartoons

In an ultimate sense, the decision of what "free speech" is and should be, and what constitutes free speech, and what comments or expression would be ultra vires that right, rest on the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada and a Privy Councillor for Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, in co-operation with the Puisne Justices.

Such is, in my opinion, the way it should be, unless otherwise explicitly indicated by the Constitution Acts — I would assert that the Court in Canada strives to protect the interests of its citizens (particularly those that would relate to the Charter and its provisions), and that we, as a society, should be grateful for the services they provide in striving to protect us from those who would abuse the right to free speech.

If you think rights are awarded by governments, you need to think again.

Rights simply exist. Governments, and constitutions, and courts can only recognize or deny rights, they can neither grant nor erase them.

If rights are granted by government, then the act of not granting rights is legitimate as well. So there was nothing wrong with the elimination of the Jews in Europe during World War Two, because the government said Jews have no rights, therefore no rights were violated.

See the point?

We have rights not because of government, but despite government.

 

[FiveParadox]

Would you assert then, Colpy, that any laws that we currently have regarding hate propaganda, or libel, or slander, or the like, should be repealed on the basis that they are ultra vires Parliament?

 

[Colin]

RE: Calgary paper runs ca

Hate propaganda is wrong, when it is directed at driving people to action against a group, I would argue that the cartoon's and hence the topic of this discussion is not hate propaganda because it does not promote violence against the mulism group. Instead it satires their actions with their beliefs, and while there are always extremists we must do our best to limit their power while allowing them to live full lives, I am not talking about war or bombing them or anthing. But this not being a matter of hate, rather it is an abuse of the system to limit freedom of others in promotion of their personal grievances. More I am talking about the extremists at home who would gladly wipe out a population because they have a greivance with it and are not enlightened enough to live and let live.

who decides what is and isn't okay? and where do we draw the line?

it's all so open to interpretation and bias that inevitably someones rights will be wrongfully abused.

Edit: Some formatting errors, probably some more, to much to get across in the limited time I have.

 

[Colpy]

Libel is a different thing altogether, as libel is only a civil offense, and is rectified by suit in civil (not criminal) court.

I stand to be corrected here, but I do not think libel or slander are criminal offenses. They shouldn't be, anyway.

And yes, I would dump the anti-hate laws as an infringement of free speech.

One could accuse me of being a straight, middle aged, white male, so nobody hates me. Of that I plead guilty.

 

[Jersay]

Hate propaganda is wrong, when it is directed at driving people to action against a group, I would argue that the cartoon's and hence the topic of this discussion is not hate propaganda because it does not promote violence against the mulism group. Instead it satires their actions with their beliefs, and while there are always extremists we must do our best to limit their power while allowing them to live full lives, I am not talking about war or bombing them or anthing. But this not being a matter of hate, rather it is an abuse of the system to limit freedom of others in promotion of their personal grievances. More I am talking about the extremists at home who would gladly wipe out a population because they have a greivance with it and are not enlightened enough to live and let live.

who decides what is and isn't okay? and where do we draw the line?

it's all so open to interpretation and bias that inevitably someones rights will be wrongfully abused.

Edit: Some formatting errors, probably some more, to much to get across in the limited time I have.

Then Colin, what about the Muslim men who were stabbed in Denmark after these cartoons were published, one dying.

I think they are hate propoganda.

Would that include banning books depicting gay sex at the border? See what happens? Some "group" is offended by homosexuality and has convinced your government reading such books is a no no.

What do you have to say now about reasonable limits of free speech?

The books should be brought to Canada.

 

[I think not]

The books should be brought to Canada.

Why is that? Some people may get deeply offended by homosexual acts.

 

[Jersay]

Why is that? Some people may get deeply offended by homosexual acts.

Because the protestors are using homophobia as a way to get their will across, that Homosexuality is a crime, it is dirty and awful and stuff like that.

 

[twotoques]

It seems as if those who oppose publication of the cartoons are, in some way, psychic because apparently they know that the cartoons are being published only to offend muslims and demonize islam.

Apparently those who claim the reasons for publishing are freedom of press, speech and against censorship, are all liars.

IMO, anyone who opposes publication is being used, knowingly or not, by those who are willing to use religious extremism and fanatism to advance their own agendas.

Although political correctness is the reason being touted by most Canadian media, the actual reasons are probably fear of a loss of revenue.

Muslims seemed not to have been greatly offended when those buddhist statues in Afghanistan were blown to pieces by other muslims.

The whole business is one more good reason to discourage anyone from believing in any religious myths.

 

[sanch]

Let’s see Islamophobia refers to a hatred of Muslims and an attempt to undermine their world view by publishing cartoons.

Homophobia on the other hand refers to individuals who refuse to embrace or recognize an alternate sexual lifestyle even if it undermines their world view.

In the first instance we have the utmost tolerance for the views of a particular group and any images that offend that group should be censored. In the second instance the argument is that groups should be exposed to images even if they might undermine their world view or religious beliefs. So Mexicans in the US who have trouble accepting an expanded view of marriage because it conflicts with their traditional religious view of marriage should be exposed to imagery even if it is offensive to them and undermines their religious beliefs.

We have to remember that many Latino groups have very traditional values. They are for the most part Catholic and so their views are similar to mainstream republicans. Should they not be protected from images and ideas that offend them. Is simply reducing their belief system to homophobia not a form of Latinophobia?

It seems there is a double standard being voiced here.

As far as the erotic literature coming into Canada I personally don’t think there should be censorship as long as it relates to consenting adults. But that is my personal view and I am sure that some because of their religious beliefs would find this position offensive.

 

[Colin]

RE: Calgary paper runs ca

"Then Colin, what about the Muslim men who were stabbed in Denmark after these cartoons were published, one dying.

I think they are hate propoganda."

Unfortunatly we live in a world that is not free from bigots, they always will exist, this comics where not hate propaganda just because a few people used them as justification for their actions, the hate had to already exist in them to the point that something so small would cause them to kill. EDIT: Also where the men stabbed before or after the burning of Denmark's flags and anti-denmark sentiment in Muslim nations. If so the it would just as likely be a reaction to that.

Isn't it funny when you talk about censoring freedom of speech yet it is that very freedom of speech that allowed things such as homosexual rights, or even the ability to practice homosexuality without being killed. And yet when that or this minority does not agree with what freedom of speech has now allowed such as the cartoons we jump on a band wagon saying 'we must limit our freedom of speech' when if we had done so earlier much of the precious rights and freedoms we have would not exist. Such thinking is just as backward as those of the extreme religious right.

Freedom of speech for all does not mean freedom of ACTION.

 

[Doryman]

[quote="Jersay]
The books should be brought to Canada.[/quote]

But they are insulting to the Christian religion. Christians believe their God made man to lay with woman, not man with man. Therefore gay literature is directly violating Christian doctrine, as it depicts sinful and wrong acts over and over. Many practising Christians are deeply offended by this.

Perhaps we should outlaw this literature. Perhaps we should apologize to the Christian community. Perhaps we should revoke these gay authors rights to write stories. Perhaps the Christians should burn the bookstores that carry them, and set fire to rainbow flags in the streets.

Perhaps the Christians should belt up, realize that the world does not bow to their rules alone, and go on with their business.

Muslims, now, that's entirely different....

 

[nitzomoe]

But they are insulting to the Christian religion. Christians believe their God made man to lay with woman, not man with man. Therefore gay literature is directly violating Christian doctrine, as it depicts sinful and wrong acts over and over. Many practising Christians are deeply offended by this.

Perhaps we should outlaw this literature. Perhaps we should apologize to the Christian community. Perhaps we should revoke these gay authors rights to write stories. Perhaps the Christians should burn the bookstores that carry them, and set fire to rainbow flags in the streets.

Perhaps the Christians should belt up, realize that the world does not bow to their rules alone, and go on with their business.

Muslims, now, that's entirely different....

if those books said Jesus was a terrorist and by extension all christians are terrorists tehn yes it would be hate material and those books should be banned as hate material, otherwise its fair game.

There are literally thousands of books condemning islam which is perfectly alrite with me (most of those books are so poorly written kids could do a better job) the problem si the direct correlation some of these cartoons have to hate material.

your argument holds no weight. There are to this date no muslims burning down embassies over Ann coulters remarks or her friends books for that matter.

 

[DasFX]

I saw Mr. Ezra Levant on Canada AM this morning and he was hilarious. I support the publishing of these cartoons. When the first story broke, I immediately looked up these cartoons to see what the fuss was about. How could I understand the story without seeing or knowing the main focus?

I still don't see how this is hate propaganda? Sure it violates Islamic law, but who cares if your not Muslim!

It is true that there must be certain limits on the freedom of expression and speech, but these cartoons come nowhere to reaching those limits.

 

[sanch]

if those books said Jesus was a terrorist and by extension all christians are terrorists tehn yes it would be hate material and those books should be banned as hate material, otherwise its fair game.

There are literally thousands of books condemning islam which is perfectly alrite with me (most of those books are so poorly written kids could do a better job) the problem si the direct correlation some of these cartoons have to hate material.

your argument holds no weight. There are to this date no muslims burning down embassies over Ann coulters remarks or her friends books for that matter.

Exactly who gives you the right—or anyone the right--to determine what core religious values are for any group? Different groups place different values on different religious symbols or beliefs. You are demanding uniformity and the referent for uniformity is Islamic belief and those standards should be universal. This is extremely ethnocentric.

Your argument by the way is not even remotely aligned with liberalism. It's more of an Islamist position. Which is fine by me. I just think it is somewhat arrogant to attack the religious beliefs of one group and then argue to uphold the beliefs of another.

Tolerance involves a willingness to accept other viewpoints and beliefs even if they differ from one’s own. My interpretation of the liberal argument here is tolerance is based on agreeability with one’s own ideas and all other ideas or beliefs should be dismissed or banned.

 

[Lotuslander]

Sanch wrote:

Let’s see Islamophobia refers to a hatred of Muslims and an attempt to undermine their world view by publishing cartoons.

Not quite true Islamophobia or arachiphobia etc.. is a fear of something in this case a fear of Islam, not muslims. One could make the case that Islamophobia does equate into a fear of Muslims but, I personally don't think the two are mutually inclusive of one another in this context. The important point is that it is a fear of something or great dislike not hatred and it applies to a religion not individuals.

As for the cartoons I have seen a number of them, though not all, and I don't really see what the big deal is. The only one that I think could be taken the wrong way so to speak is Mohamed with a turban bomb. However, the way things have progressed I think the muslim community is making a mountain out of a molehill. I have read some muslims who have criticised Mohamed being depicted at all (never mind the incendiary head gear)which I don't think is right. If I want to draw a picture of Mohamed why should someone else's religion stop me from doing so and exercising my creative free will? I am an Anglican and the tenants of Islam do not apply to me!

Of course the cartoons were more than just a caricature of Mohamed they implied that Islam was a violent religion. (Studies have been done on this very subject whether some religions are more prone to violence than others.) So I guess the question becomes at some point is that assertion true or is it spreading hatred? If the cartoons are relevant and depicting what is generally accepted at least in popular philosophy as the truth, then the cartoons are merely an expression of what society thinks, a reflection on the Western world's opinion of Islam, albeit with imperfections and misconceptions.

One more contention which some have towards the cartoons is that somehow religion is off limits to political commentary. This is simply a ridiculous notion-which is not only undemocratic and against free speech but, against knowledge or at least the attainment of knowledge itself. Never has religion been off limits nor should it. Religious leaders possess considerable political, moral and ethical power and influence which they often use. The Pope is often criticised for his stance on abortion and the shayks who propogate violence against the America or any other country should be held to account for thier political views. \

As Ghandi put it:

"As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."