Western Standard Publish the "evil" Cartoons

[FiveParadox]

Conceding that there are inappropriate or inconsiderate uses of free speech is most certainly not "tacit support [for] the intimidators." In my opinion, while free speech most certainly is a right, at least insofar as can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" (as per the Constitution Act, 1982), just because one has that right does not mean that one should, or must, use that right at each and every opportunity.

I would think it somewhat odd that this right never seems to surface when it could serve society — but rather, only when it could serve to cause controversial and offensive ramifications. If controversy and offence are the only things that rights are good for, then they are highly overrated.

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: Western Standard Publish the "evil" Cartoo

Conceding that there are inappropriate or inconsiderate uses of free speech is most certainly not "tacit support [for] the intimidators."

When someone transfers blame for violence to those exercising free speech from the perpetrators, then that is tacit support for the intimidators IMO. That is exactly what Bally was saying and what I was responding to.

I would think it somewhat odd that this right never seems to surface when it could serve society — but rather, only when it could serve to cause controversial.

This should be a rhetorical statement, because obviously there is no challenge to free speech when there is no controversy, there has to be a challenge before the question of defence of free speech comes up. In fact this is the only real test of free speech.

You don't need a protected right of free speech to relay the boring, or to tell you what you want to hear, or to see pictures of daisies, puppy dogs and snow angels.

Free speech is protected so we get to hear the unpopular ideas, the unusal controversial views, to provoke debate, to criticise the sacred cows, to see the truth when it is uncomfortable.

Would you have banned Rushdies book? Irshad Manjis?

 

[Ballyhootenanny]

Just because we can publish them, doesn't mean we should.

It's withing your rights of free speech to yell taunting remarks at a crazed hostage taker, but since this action endangers human life decorum becomes more important than insisting on excercising your right on principle.

Leave it to those Albertan crackers to percieve acting diplomatically as a threat to their human rights.

 

[Colpy]

Just because we can publish them, doesn't mean we should.

It's withing your rights of free speech to yell taunting remarks at a crazed hostage taker, but since this action endangers human life decorum becomes more important than insisting on excercising your right on principle.

Leave it to those Albertan crackers to percieve acting diplomatically as a threat to their human rights.

Yeah, right.

So now we have the EU and the UN moving to make regulations banning blasphemy.

Gee, I wonder if that will include pics of rappers wearing crowns of thorns? (see Rolling Stone), or the "piss Christ" artwork, or the movie "The Last temptation of Christ" and on and on.

Somehow I doubt it.

Don't those of you who aren't rednecks ever getting tired of appeasing whatever looney threatens you?

Leave it to urban non-Albertans to lean over for whomever is next.

 

[#juan]

The people responsible for the Muslim violence are the Muslim religious leaders. I would bet that not one in a thousand "protestors" have even seen that collection of mediocre cartoons. Anyone who thinks the protests are genuine, spontanious, outrage by an indignant people, need to give their head a shake.

 

[Jay]

Albertan crackers

And don't think for a sec that is lost on me.

 

[Freethinker]

Just because we can publish them, doesn't mean we should.

The better aproach would have been to universally stand in solidarity against this nonsense, rather than try to appease them, which will never be possible anyway.

The cartoons were originally posted to combat the atmosphere of fear surrounding Islam. It is something that should be addressed and confronted, not hidden from and appeased.

Worse of all though is your attempt to lay the blame for violence at the hands of those trying to combat the fear and intimidation.

 

[Ballyhootenanny]

Just because we can publish them, doesn't mean we should.

It's withing your rights of free speech to yell taunting remarks at a crazed hostage taker, but since this action endangers human life decorum becomes more important than insisting on excercising your right on principle.

Leave it to those Albertan crackers to percieve acting diplomatically as a threat to their human rights.

Yeah, right.

So now we have the EU and the UN moving to make regulations banning blasphemy.

Gee, I wonder if that will include pics of rappers wearing crowns of thorns? (see Rolling Stone), or the "piss Christ" artwork, or the movie "The Last temptation of Christ" and on and on.

Somehow I doubt it.

I don't see what this has to do with anything you quoted. I didn't say that publishing these cartoons should be illegal because some psychos in other countries say so, nor did I say they should be illegal for any other reason. I argued for decorum, not legislation.

There is a difference between something being inappropriate and illegal.

 

[damngrumpy]

This is about freedom of the press and the radical muslim community is waiting to see if we are going to bow down to them.
The Muslim Congress can request anything nicely or otherwise, however we live in a secular country not some tribal state from the middle ages. Caartoons have ridiculed Christians, Jews and everyone else over time so whats the big deal here.
There should be a notice to all Canadians, if you want to be here in the midst of society, be a law abiding citizen, if you want to riot over something as silly as being offended by a cartoon in a news paper then face the music when the law throws you in jail and demands payment for the property you destroyed, enough is enough. This country belongs to all of us and one group can't expect to be treated with special kid gloves, is time the radical Islamics grew up or left this country.

 

[zoofer]

Moderate Muslims do not protest against the radicals as they are afraid of being killed.
Any radical fundamentalists caught rioting and burning embassies should be stripped of citizenship and deported to wherever they came from. One appeal allowed.

 

[Ballyhootenanny]

Just because we can publish them, doesn't mean we should.

The better aproach would have been to universally stand in solidarity against this nonsense, rather than try to appease them, which will never be possible anyway.

The cartoons were originally posted to combat the atmosphere of fear surrounding Islam. It is something that should be addressed and confronted, not hidden from and appeased.

Worse of all though is your attempt to lay the blame for violence at the hands of those trying to combat the fear and intimidation.

Universally stand in solidarity. Sounds nice. But isn't the world pretty much already in solidarity that these violent twits are wrong? I haven't heard many people defend their actions.

So we stand in solidarity against by antagonizing them? Wait wait...I'm confused. I know it's courageous to put your life on the line for a principle. But...is it still courageous if the only lives you're putting on the line belong to other people?

And the WS isn't trying to combat fear and intimidation. Get real. They're trying to grab headlines by provoking hystericals at a time of tension.

And of course fear and intimidation need to be addressed. But via insulting cartoons? What a diplomat you'd make.

 

[Freethinker]

And the WS isn't trying to combat fear and intimidation. Get real. They're trying to grab headlines by provoking hystericals at a time of tension.

And of course fear and intimidation need to be addressed. But via insulting cartoons? What a diplomat you'd make.

I never claimed to be a diplomat. But we shouldn't simply modify our behaviour to accommodate people based on how unreasonable they are.

The extremists are getting their way by being unreasonable. By years of continual threats and violence they have created a censorship based on fear. This is what the Danes attempted to break through. They should not be criticized for that. We don't need to support the climate of fear based censorship that extremists are trying to generate.

This is essentially a complete replay of Salmon Rushdies book publishing. The last time we did not appease, but this time this appears to be an official line and I don't think it is a healthy thing.

I took particular umbrage with your suggestion that anyone standing up to the fear based censorship is somehow responsible for any ensuing violence.

This is the environment we are fostering, by simple appeasement and self censorship:
Dutch film director Albert Ter Heerdt, who canceled the sequel to his hit multicultural comedy ''Shouf Shouf Habibi!'' on the grounds that "I don't want a knife in my chest"

Very few have the bravery to publish anything anymore and we should applaud and support those who do, not blame them for violence, as you are ready to do.

 

[snfu73]

Ugh...the Western Standard...what a horrid, horrid waste of trees that thing is. I can't believe anyone can read that with a straight face.

 

[s243a]

Where are the bomb bomb Canada protests? I feel so left out.

 

[Walter]

Ugh...the Western Standard...what a horrid, horrid waste of trees that thing is. I can't believe anyone can read that with a straight face.

I read it regularly. Do you read the Toronto Star or perhaps the Edmonton Jounal?