sda2.jpg

February 10, 2006

Provocation Avoidance Reporting

Journalists in the Malasia and Yemen are teaching Western publishers and governments a thing or two about courage. It is in the West, however, where the reaction is positively chilling.

The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furore caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said today.

In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show ''prudence'' when covering religion.

''The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,'' he told the newspaper.


Perhaps they should save themselves needless duplication and cc the Chinese world.

Epoch Times

[T]wo armed men forced themselves into the home in Atlanta of Epoch Times lead information technology specialist Mr. Yuan P. Li, beating him and stealing two of his laptops. After Mr. Li managed to free himself from the extension cord used to bind him, he was taken to an area hospital for treatment. His statement describing this attack is published below.


2006-2-9-stiches-60208224406731.jpg
This crime, occurring in a very safe area in Atlanta and done without concern for the taking of valuables, breaks new ground in the Chinese Communist regime's campaign against The Epoch Times.

That campaign has previously taken the form of arresting Epoch Times staff inside mainland China, and, outside mainland China, systematically stealing newspapers, attempting to intimidate advertisers, applying pressure to deny Epoch Times staff the opportunity to cover events at which Chinese government officials appear, and threatening the family members inside mainland China of Epoch Times staff living outside China.

In addition, The Epoch Times in Malaysia has been blocked from publication due to the Chinese regime's interference, according to press watchdog groups. Also, Epoch Times offices in Sydney and Toronto have received in the mail suspicious envelopes that were suspected of containing toxic materials.


In South Africa, the Independent Media Group has now apologized for publishing quotes from Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.

Which brings me to a more personal message to a young reporter who interviewed me yesterday. Perhaps it will help him better understand my reasons for publishing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

Brodie Fenlon - this post is for you and your editor.

It is useful to know that the Toronto Sun's editorial policy includes "provocation avoidance". Now, when we read your coverage of politically sensitive news, we must take into consideration the possibility that your facts and analysis have been tempered by an undisclosed measure of self-censorship, and judge your worth as journalists accordingly.

(Sun piece is here)

Kathy Shaidle was interviewed by email, and has posted the whole thing. Damian Penny is explains "Freedom of Blasthemy".

Posted by Kate at February 10, 2006 1:52 AM
Comments

While it happened to Mr. Li in the US, and without going into details, I know not only the Chinese secret service but also Vietnamese secret service who regularly threaten "their" people here, or their families back home.

The cops, RCMP, and CSIS can't or won't do anything about it.

Welcome to the new Canada. Our western civilization is liken to a house of cards...

While North America (namely the US) can withstand any attack, I think our society will die due a thousand small cuts, such as our freedom being taken away, piece by political correct piece.

Posted by: tomax at February 10, 2006 2:03 AM

When a 'conservative' blogger like Andrew Coyne can wax poetic about Emerson when REAL stories like Reloscam and this abound, you have to say "hmmmm"

Posted by: Candace at February 10, 2006 2:32 AM

Why isolate incidents and then use them as though they’re characteristic behavior.

You're saying freedom of speech/press but you're sounding like freedom of irresponsible expression.

That would sum up most blog comments and sending the pack over to the guy's site to unload on him. He has a different point of view and so does his boss. So what?

I suspect you'll find a lot of people and incidents that support your constructs, and a lot that don't. Your blog to filter however you need to.

Posted by: steve in bc at February 10, 2006 2:42 AM

This is just one more step in the suicide of the Main Stream Media. Ane one more reason why we may not win this war.

This bodes well for the blogosphere. All views even raw ones will be available for scrutiny and each reader can make up his own mind then debate it on line.

That's a better way to disseminate news of events rather than filtered through some Trudeaupean control freak... At least until Islam convinces our government to get rid of bloggers.

Posted by: Duke at February 10, 2006 2:46 AM

As soon as I read this on Fenlon's site:

"The cartoons seem remarkably innocuous to me, a white, privileged, Christian living in a democracy where state and religion are separate."

I suddenly felt nauseous...

Posted by: JJM at February 10, 2006 3:12 AM

There is a difference between freedom of expression/speech etc and just plain bad taste. It's just common sense that if you wouldn't publish something derogatory about your own religion, then you prolly shouldn't publish something derogatory about another religion. Equal silence or equal airtime/press for all. Otherwise you risk being the same as the radical clerics stirring the trouble. However.... when a group of people DEMAND of another group, such as we have now.... religiously corrupt people DEMANDING no less that the west prostrate itself before them, all I can say to them is... (censor) You! The only way to play this is by their rules. Turning the other cheek, and playing by "Christian" rules will not solve the problem of hate-spewing imams and clerics. Either Muslims will have to "take back" their religion, or the radicals will have to be hunted down and destroyed. Because you know, as long as they have a finger that can trip a switch, or a tongue that can achieve the same goal, there will be NO peace or tolerance. This orchestrated orgy of intolerance has just shown us what we've always known. And they want nuclear capability for "peaceful" purposes. Yeah, Rrrrriiiighhht! As long as we have media that caves to demands of special interest groups like the radicals, we will have readers of that media following suit. Soon we'll have a propaganda machine Goebbels would be proud of, and the Islamic extremists will have their "peaceful" nukes.

Posted by: Snookie at February 10, 2006 4:33 AM

I have to agree with Brodie Fenlon on one point:

"Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should."

Just because you have the right to offend people doesn't imply that you have to offend people.
What this means though is that the cartoonist and editor should be careful when they are aproaching sensitive topics; if they determine that their opinion must be represented (knowing that it will offend people) they should still be able to present it to their reading public.

Posted by: NoOne at February 10, 2006 6:57 AM

Who decides what is offensive?

Posted by: qwerty at February 10, 2006 7:04 AM

I feel sorry for the few people in the muslim world who are not completely brainwashed by religous fanatism. Assuming there are any Atheists in the Muslim world how frightening it must be to live in a society where you would have to hide your thoughts for risk of being stoned by the hysterical mob. I have been reading many of the comments to this from many sites, its depressing how virtually every poster with a arab sounding name is completely hung up on 'mohammed'. The muslim world is already in a dark age, the only issue will we be next ? I greatly fear for the future of Europe.

Posted by: JohnS at February 10, 2006 7:22 AM

It is important to keep publishing these idiotic cartoons. No publication has laid the myth of multiculturalism so bare.
The calls for jihad, beheading, death threats, show the level of civilization of these people. Show the Piss Christ, and Christians write letters. Show the Mohammed cartoons and people are murdered.

Posted by: Lyle Bert at February 10, 2006 7:38 AM


I am not surprised by the Chinese response, that's the hot, sharp stick of freedom, in their eye.

I was surprised by Yahoo and Google's response to the Chinese demand for censor, although I realize it is this, or total blocking of these sites.

another interesting response starts with "If freedom of expression isn't dangerous, it isn't worth defending".

read the rest, it's only 2 pages, at http://www.reason.com/links/links020306.shtml

Posted by: marc58510 at February 10, 2006 7:46 AM


I wouldn't put a person publishing a Muslim parody cartoon on the same moral high ground as a Chinese person working for democratic reform. The former is heroic the second is too tinged with spite to be put on a pedastal.

But that's beside the point. Freedom of speech includes the latitude to use it without restraints of taste or second geussing sensibilities.

Just keep that in mind the next time you see a crucifix made out of poop created by a homosexual german.

Posted by: Jose at February 10, 2006 7:50 AM


and I think, "just because you can, dosen't mean you should" means "we must"
a freedom not used, is a freedom not had.

If I can lift 200 pounds, and I don't do this with some regularity, I will soon find that I cannot lift this. And the real trouble with that, is that when I need to lift it the most, it is that moment I will discover it.

"only oppression, should fear the full excercise of freedom"

Posted by: marc58510 at February 10, 2006 7:57 AM

Jose, et al:

Speaking to you as a gay conservative, one who convinced at least 300 people to change their views that Conservative = Homophobic during the election, you are making it very hard for those people to believe me.

The topic is freedom of speech and thought. Why would you go out of your way to throw in the words gay or homosexual when you write your replies? Sure, you have the freedom to be homophobic and express that, it just seems that's for a different thread, it's off topic here. Unless it's all you can think about on any topic. In which case you should explore your feelings.

Irshad Manji, a Canadian lesbian, has put her life on the line to try and wake-up the silent majority of Muslims to stop this problem. She recognized it years ago as a little girl, and has been trying to convince Muslims to address it way before it got this out of hand.

Irshad has received too many death threats to count. She is one of the very few Canadian heros we have in this day and age. Especially while on the topic of free-speech verses death, why not show a little respect?

Simply being openly lesbian is enough to get her gang raped and killed in that culture. Writing a book denouncing the violence and intolerance of Islam and loudly calling for reform is the bravest thing anyone I know has ever done.

And Irshad isn't sitting in the safety of Toronto, she's currently travelling in the Muslim world shooting a documentary about Islam.

If Islam is to change and become part of the modern world, it'll be due to Irshad and the people she inspires to take action. And that my friends, is seriously heroic, save the world kind of work.

Posted by: Kyla at February 10, 2006 8:16 AM

I think this quote from Steve in BC sums up the meme:

"You're saying freedom of speech/press but you're sounding like freedom of irresponsible expression."

Steve, in a free country there IS no irresponsible expression. There is only expression.

I think the Danes showed guts, and Kate did as well. One does not bow to the provocations of tin-pot dictators, and that's all this is. The European Union's leaders are imbeciles.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 10, 2006 8:48 AM

"So this is how democracy dies, to thunderous applause."
Every now and then, I like to read Orwell's 1984 to see how much closer to the Big Brother ideal we have moved.
As near as I can see, this is getting closer to the doublespeak that is described in the book. When the Truth is trumped by offensive sensibilites, journalistic integrity suffers. If it continues, we will no longer have the facts at our hands to make up our own minds but blindly follow the direction the watered down half-truths lead.
Where did I put that book?

Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at February 10, 2006 8:55 AM

Sensorship is a slippery slope thing, there is no way to determine "what" exactly is considered by all to be in bad taste or offensive and to "whom" because everyone single person is different and who, exactly, would we have make any kind of determinations. Freedom of speech, expression and the press HAVE to be an all or nothing thing or they don't work. If some Muslims feel disrespected or dishonored by these cartoons they have the free choice NOT TO LOOK AT THEM!! The fact that it has been Muslim Imams that created most of these 30 or so offensive cartoons and then brought them around to middle eastern countries specifically to further entice hatred of the west tells me we MUST FIGHT for these freedoms all the more!

Posted by: Charley at February 10, 2006 9:06 AM


AREOPAGITICA;
A
SPEECH
OF
Mr. JOHN MILTON [1608-1674]
For the Liberty of UNLICENC'D PRINTING,
To the PARLAMENT of ENGLAND.

This is true Liberty when free born men
Having to advise the public may speak free,
Which he who can, and will, deserv's high praise,
Who neither can nor will, may hold his peace;
What can be juster in a State then this?

Eurip. Hicetid.

For the Liberty of unlicenc'd Printing

Excerpt: Last paragraph.

And as for regulating the Presse, let no man think to have the honour of advising ye better then your selves have done in that Order publisht next before this, that no book be Printed, unlesse the Printers and the Authors name, or at least the Printers be register'd. Those which otherwise come forth, if they be found mischievous and libellous, the fire and the executioner will be the timeliest and the most effectuall remedy, that mans prevention can use. For this authentic Spanish policy of licencing books, if I have said aught, will prove the most unlicenc't book it self within a short while; and was the immediat image of a Star-chamber decree to that purpose made in those very times when that Court did the rest of those her pious works, for which she is now fall'n from the Starres with Lucifer. Whereby ye may guesse what kinde of State prudence, what love of the people, what care of Religion, or good manners there was at the contriving, although with singular hypocrisie it pretended to bind books to their good behaviour. And how it got the upper hand of your precedent Order so well constituted before, if we may beleeve those men whose profession gives them cause to enquire most, it may be doubted there was in it the fraud of some old patentees and monopolizers in the trade of book-selling; who under pretence of the poor in their Company not to be defrauded, and the just retaining of each man his severall copy, which God forbid should be gainsaid, brought divers glosing colours to the House, which were indeed but colours, and serving to no end except it be to exercise a superiority over their neighbours, men who doe not therefore labour in an honest profession to which learning is indetted, that they should be made other mens vassalls. Another end is thought was aym'd at by some of them in procuring by petition this Order, that having power in their hands, malignant books might the easier scape abroad, as the event shews. But of these Sophisms and Elenchs of marchandize I skill not: This I know, that errors in a good government and in a bad are equally almost incident; for what Magistrate may not be mis-inform'd, and much the sooner, if liberty of Printing be reduc't into the power of a few; but to redresse willingly and speedily what hath bin err'd, and in highest autority to esteem a plain advertisement more then others have done a sumptuous bribe, is a vertue (honour'd Lords and Commons) answerable to Your highest actions, and whereof none can participat but greatest and wisest men.

The End >>>
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/areopagitica/index.shtml

Posted by: maz2 at February 10, 2006 9:08 AM

Provocation avoidance is standard practice at all Canadian papers.

Two professional journalists have told me that A Certain Canadian Daily is sitting on photos of Toronto Muslims celebrating on 9/11, outside Union Station, since 2001...

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at February 10, 2006 9:24 AM

provocation avoidance????? Who decides what is provocation and who is being provoked--and is it ok to provoke some but not others?? I am provoked every time I read an article about the 'great' Liberal ethics or morals--does that mean the msm will not print those stories? NO--it means I don't matter a damn in the greater scheme of things--I am not an 'in group' worthy of protection. I belong to the group that does not deserve the truth in reporting because it doesn't matter if I am provoked. Now--should we and those like me rise up and demand the death of the Liberal promoters in the msm--would that make us a 'more equal' group? We only work to pay the bills--we are not worthy of any special consideration by the msm or anyone else. Maybe we should take a page out of the radical Muslim play book? After all--it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease!

Posted by: George at February 10, 2006 9:46 AM

"sending the pack over to the guy's site to unload on him. He has a different point of view and so does his boss. So what?"

His point of view, and that of his boss, are undermining western democracy and our ability to trust a free press to report on significant issues without self-serving censorship out of fear and intimidation.

The cartoons have become such a story that it is unacceptable to report on it without also providing the context - that being the cartoons themselves - so that readers and viewers can judge for themselves whether the reaction is even remotely justified.

I believe that is part of the reason most are NOT showing them. They know it will peel back the veneer of multi-culturalism for the sham it is and force Canadians to acknowledge the deeply intolerant nature of a significant number of Muslims.


Posted by: Kate at February 10, 2006 9:55 AM

So if I as a christian are provoked by homosexual marriages will all media stop running pro-homosexual articles?

Or is their messdage that they respond to bullying?

Posted by: DrWright at February 10, 2006 9:56 AM

For someone to say that they are not publishing the cartoons because it is provocative is like banning smoking in a cancer ward. It is a symbolic gesture only. The damage is done and the reactions from here now on (more precisely a couple of weeks ago) in say more about the speaker than the events.

The news media are going to live to regret this for a long time. I fully expect sanctimonious respect for everyone from now on. This is not a religious issue, this is political, so the 'respect' will obviously be shown in that sphere.

It is impossible for anyone without internet access to get the full flavor of this story, probably the story of the year. I read the papers, but for real news I go elsewhere. Now tell me why I should continue spending money for nothing?

To all newspapers and journalists everywhere: justify your existence.

Derek

Posted by: dkite at February 10, 2006 9:59 AM

An excerpt from "Curse of the Moderates", Charles Krauthammer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901434.html

'...
What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.

Have any of these "moderates" ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis?..

A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.

And these "moderates" are aided and abetted by Western "moderates" who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung and celebrate the "Piss Christ" (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but who are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad...'

And from from Canadian newspapers (full texts not online):

Excerpts:

1) "One feather is made into five hens", Christie Blatchford:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20060210.BLATCHFORD10%2FTPStory%2FColumnists&ord=4848146&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

'...
What the controversy has revealed as starkly as anything else is a remarkable lack of courage in media and government quarters...

Denunciations of violence are useful, but not so much when fear of inciting more of it serves to turn the speaker mush-mouthed. Was that really Canada's new Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay who in a statement this week said that "this sensitive issue highlights the need for a better understanding of Islam and of the Muslim community?"..

...We Canucks think we have the best passport in the world...I regret to say we appear determined to keep it that way, whatever the cost.'

2) "New math: cartoons equal bloodshed", Dan Gardner:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=0a4fdc63-5e34-479d-a044-f117f9870d82

'...
In early December, Ms. Arbour [UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and erstwhile justice of the Supreme Court of Canada] responded in a letter to an Islamic organization that had complained to the UN about the cartoons. "I understand your reaction to the images that appeared in the newspaper," she wrote. "I find alarming any behaviours that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable."

I have to admit that my first thought when I read that statement was, "thank Christ she's not on the Supreme Court any more." But then I realized that some people might find that offensive. So I thought about slipping in a quick word of gratitude to Allah as well, but given the current circumstances, maybe not. A nice, generic "thank God" would do, I suppose, except I am a secular humanist who believes all religions are dangerous nonsense...

So I decided not to thank anyone for the fact that Ms. Arbour and her censorious views views are no longer shaping the laws of this country. I will just say I am pleased.

If that offends anyone, I apologize. Please don't kill me.

But if you do, we're even.'

And what some Canadian Muslims want:
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/canada_world/story.html?id=fc8ee750-fa66-4c95-b24d-4199b2447165

'"We are trying our best to avoid a demonstration," Salam Elmenyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal, said.

Instead, imams want the federal and Quebec governments to pass laws making anti-Islamic action a hate crime.'

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins at February 10, 2006 10:04 AM

"deeply intolerant nature of a significant number of Muslims."

Good point Kate.

You'd think tolerance would be a two way street!

Posted by: Colin at February 10, 2006 10:05 AM

"provocation avoidence" is fine as long as it is equally applied....so we don't want any more Muslim publications depicting Jews and westerners as pigs and satans....or should we even care?

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at February 10, 2006 10:40 AM

Toronto Sun
Andy Donato 'cartoon'
Feb 9, 2005

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Donato/2006/02/09/pf-1432786.html

Posted by: JM at February 10, 2006 10:43 AM

snookie nailed it bang on

Posted by: Chris in Ontario at February 10, 2006 10:49 AM

More bad behaviour in the Toronto (Red) Star today:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139526651816&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Stupid punks behaving badly at school.

"A peaceful protest turned tense yesterday when some Muslim students confronted a Halifax professor who drew criticism for posting contentious cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on his office door."

"Peter March, a philosophy professor at Saint Mary's University, said he was merely trying to promote a reasoned debate when he suddenly showed up in the midst of 100 protestors."

Imagine the gall of the man, showing up at their demonstration to discuss the issues! That rat b*stard!

I wonder how the wronged student demonstrators would feel if the rowdies caught on tape were sumarilly ejected from school for un-colegial behaviour?

Sooner of later the dorks who run these universities are going to either get the message that violent intimidation is not a legitimate debating technique, or they are going to be replaced by someone who does get it.

Violent behaviour equals no education. You can be as offended as you like so long as you keep your hands in your pockets. What a concept.

Posted by: The Phantom at February 10, 2006 10:50 AM

Kate,

Thanks to SDA for "exposing" the 'offensive' cartoon, which has created the flap. I printed it last night and left it on the breakfast table for my sons to see.

"Is this what it's all about??" were the two comments. A good discussion ensued and I hope it brought some enlightenment to a 14 and a 13 year old mind. I know it did. I was there!

Thanks again.

Posted by: Garry P. at February 10, 2006 10:52 AM

And I thought the Europeans had finaly woken from their slumber. How pathetic, they will all be muslims before too long!

Posted by: Sherwood Baker at February 10, 2006 11:01 AM

What a sad inditement of humankind. Where are the Doug Laytons, Libbies and Svens now when civilization needs defending? I wish everyone would e-mail Canadian party leaders and demand they defend our freedoms and condem the extremeists in this world. Exile Paul Martin and Maurice Strong to China which is such a friendly free place to live.

Posted by: melwilde at February 10, 2006 11:08 AM

What a sad inditement of humankind. Where are the Doug Laytons, Libbies and Svens now when civilization needs defending? I wish everyone would e-mail Canadian party leaders and demand they defend our freedoms and condem the extremeists in this world. Exile Paul Martin and Maurice Strong to China which is such a friendly free place to live.

Posted by: melwilde at February 10, 2006 11:09 AM

Swedish Government Surrenders to Islam

The Swedish government has completely knuckled under to radical Islam: Sweden shuts website over cartoon. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

The Swedish government has moved to shut down the website of a far-right political party’s newspaper over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The site’s host, Levonline, pulled the plug on the website of the Swedish Democrats’ SD-Kuriren newspaper after consulting with the government.

It is believed to be the first time a Western government has intervened to block a publication in the growing row.

Kuriren editor Richard Jomshof said the government was breaking the law.

“We have to do something about it. This is illegal. They can’t do this just because we are a small magazine,” he told the BBC News website.

Way to go, Sweden. You’ll be much happier under your new overlords. >>> via LGF

Posted by: maz2 at February 10, 2006 11:12 AM

"Toronto Sun editor-in-chief Jim Jennings said in a column published yesterday that this paper won't reprint the cartoons because "there is a world of difference between discussion and debate and engaging in sweeping generalizations and racist stereotyping ... just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should do it."

So offering the factual example of what the debate is about is "engaging in sweeping generalizations and racist stereotyping "...now I know why I cancelled my Sun subscription some 8 years back....rank chicken shit politically correct editorial pontificating from the TO office....pretty pathtic seeing the Sun's posturing as a potent feisty paper then when the time comes to show it, they lose their nuts.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at February 10, 2006 11:15 AM

Bang on, Garry P.
Alan Derschowitz makes the same point. No one can intelligently and critically have on opinion on this matter without viewing the drawings. You can bet the newspaper editors did. But rather than let the readers make informed opinions, they told the readers what opinion to have. This is why I get most of my news through bloggers now.

Having seen them (thank you bloggers), all but three seem to me to be more banal than you could imagine. Indeed, that seems to have been the point of most of the cartoonists. The caricatures were not done simply to be provocative; they were done to express the point that Muslim intimidation had made it impossible to find an illustrator for a childen's book to promote understanding of the Muslim faith to non-Muslims. It was a noble use of freedom of expression. It was political speech pure and simple and that is the core of free speech.

There is an apt comparison being made between the timid newspapers (not even up to the gumption of the large-circulation Egyptian paper that ran them in October 2005) and shopkeeps in communist-controlled Czechoslovakia, who displayed "workers of the world unite" signs in their shop windows. What the signs really meant were "I do not believe in this but I am too timid to stand up to tyranny and want to be seen as acquiescent by the authorities but and too ashamed to come out and say directly that I want to display acquiesence."

Kudos Kate. Don't wear that shameful sign.

The Muslim reaction has been largely ungenuine and trumped up for political purposes.

Posted by: Murray at February 10, 2006 11:20 AM

Kenyan riot police clash with Muslim protesters
Maill and Guardian online ^ | 10 February 2006 04:31 | Sapa-AFP

Posted on 02/10/2006 7:42:23 AM PST by one more state

Kenyan security forces fired tear gas at angry stone-throwing Muslim demonstrators attempting to march on the Danish embassy in Nairobi to protest cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, witnesses said on Friday.

Baton-wielding riot police launched tear-gas canisters to disperse about 300 protesters on a main thoroughfare in the capital after the crowd tried to break through a cordon by hurling rocks and other projectiles, they said.

At least one person was injured in the melee, witnesses said.

"I just saw something hit me and I fell down," said demonstrator Shaban Kariuki (18), who was bleeding from the hip.

An Agence France-Presse correspondent at the scene said the crowd involved had broken off from a larger demonstration and march through Nairobi that had been largely peaceful, although United States and Danish flags were set afire.

More than 2 500 people had earlier attended an organised demonstration at a sports stadium before joining up with hundreds of others to parade through the downtown business district, chanting anti-Western slogans.

"Are you ready to stand up and fight for your Prophet?" Sheikh Ibrahim Lethome, of the Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims, asked the raucous crowd at the stadium, which responded with a huge "Yes."

"Are we ready to die for the sake of the Prophet Muhammad?" he asked. "Yes," the crowd replied.

"Why is there freedom of expression to insult Muslims but not other religions?" he asked. "Are we ready to respond to our oppressors with peace?"

"No," shouted back the crowd, members of which carried placards pledging to die in the fight against the cartoons that first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September and have since been reprinted in other European newspapers.

"We are ready for jihad", "Denmark, you will see our action", "We stand ready to defend our religion", and "We are ready to fight for our holy Prophet" read some of the banners.

Protesters then set fire to the US and Danish flags, proclaiming that "freedom of expression is Western terrorism" before taking to the streets to denounce the cartoons. At the Kenyan foreign ministry, where the marchers paused briefly, another Danish flag was set alight. >>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1575879/posts

Posted by: maz2 at February 10, 2006 11:25 AM

Journalism and publishing was never for the faint hearted. What we are seeing is the ever inreasing control both commercially and politcally of the MSM. This has erroded their influence slowing but surely and I concur that the Blogsphere is the future.

Posted by: John Parry at February 10, 2006 11:32 AM

Good point, Murray. I guess editors are so far superior to us intellectuall, morally and psychologically that they can view these cartoons without harm -- but we poor benighted peasants must be protected. For are own good, of course...

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at February 10, 2006 11:37 AM

We've watched political correctness sap the courage of pols and MSM alike. Now it's about 99% gone. We live in a country where our warriors are called "peacekeepers" and treated by government and MSM like the insane relative locked in the attic. Aggressive non Judeo Christians figured it out a long time ago, that is why we have hiring quotas,and immigration policies designed to unite families regardless of whether they can earn a living. People who have no moral foundation can't tell the difference between right and wrong. Our recent governing party was the epitome of cowardly acqiesence to whomever yells the loudest. The post WW2 generation is, to put it bluntly, a bunch of spoiled, coddled cowards. We were handed the world and set about improving it by destroying everything our parents built for us. We went out and pursued higher education, and developed little common sense. Political Correctness seems to be more of a city dwellers disease, as I've found that the folks in rural areas and smaller towns don't seem to be as badly infected. All nations have to find the courage to stand up to Islamic aggression or we will lose this war against civilization.

Posted by: dmorris at February 10, 2006 11:43 AM

Time for the cdn media to get some backbone. Lets have some muslim flag burnings in Toronto. Anyone who is against the papers refusal to print or denounce these terrorists for what they are, should never buy another paper. Much more important to cover up liberal sleaze and go after Harper. I never want to see another story on the kidnapped aid workers, (by muslims) or hear a tape from OBL, as it might offend me. Nice to know there will never be anymore stories or photos or interviews with anyone against SSM, Jews, Death Camps in Germany, Natural Disasters, or funerals for those someone thinks is or was important. Might offend someone. Wonder is the Sun will now hide all stories of the shootings in TO as it will offend those doing the killing. The paper has taken a very dangerous step in limiting our so called right to know. With their stmt that certain things will not be published, makes you wonder how much was not reported during the liberal yrs of sleaze, because it might offend non liberals. Boycott all papers until a few thousand protestors are killed, and wait for this to happen in our chicken little Canada. We should all say thanks to Trudeau for his social engineering and multi-cultural crap. There is no such thing as a peaceful muslim. There plan is to convert the world to islam, and they have found a way to do it. Can't wait for the Tournament of Hearts to see Colleen Jones curling in a Burka.

Posted by: maryT at February 10, 2006 11:53 AM


dmorris,

VERY well put!!

Posted by: Garry P. at February 10, 2006 11:53 AM

Does freedom of speech apply to Garth Turner or do we not have an open political culture?

Posted by: steve in bc at February 10, 2006 12:09 PM

In the normal course of events, I suppose there is some wisdom in not provoking the school yard bully thereby antagonizing him into some senseless reaction.

However, if the bully is out to destroy your way of life and even kill you because you don't share his perverted medieval beliefs, then I think it is high time to spit in his eye and kick him out of the school yard.

Posted by: Joe Canuck at February 10, 2006 12:11 PM

For those of us who don't fully understand what is or could be offensive, the following might be helpful. It was posted on The Policeman's Blog (England) Feb. 6. (The 'perceived' part makes it a bit difficult.)

www.coppersblog.blogspot.com, under DIFFERENT JOB posted by 'mick in the U.K.'. (To show he wasn't making it up, he linked to the online police.uk website.)

Hate Crime
Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

Hate Incident
Any incident, which may or may not constitute a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

Racist Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

Homophobic Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic by the victim or any other person.

Transphobic Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be transphobic by the victim or any other person.

Faith Related Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be based upon prejudice towards or hatred of the faith of the victim or so perceived by the victim or any other person.

Sectarian Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be sectarian by the victim or any other person.

Disablist Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be based upon prejudice towards or hatred of the victim because of their disability or so perceived by the victim or any other person.

Posted by: gellen at February 10, 2006 12:11 PM

3 things aboutKathy Shaidle:

1. She needs to get laid more, and not just in the missionary position that her parish priest tells her is OK.

2. She is opposed to the imposition of Sharia law in Western countries, and that's fine. Somehow, I don't think she would be opposed to a Roman Catholic form of 'Sharia" being put in place

3. And ain't it funny (in a sickening way) how Catholics like Kathy can play the victim card so easily when it suits them, usually bringing up Northern Ireland and anti-Catholic bigotry in early N. America as examples of their 'historical oppression'. No group in the history of Western civilization prior to the 20th century has a track recording of killing, persecuting, exiling, and excommunicating its opponents than the Mother Church.

Posted by: evilprinceweasel at February 10, 2006 12:13 PM

I meant to say, "....equal to that of the Mother Church.."

Posted by: evilprinceweasel at February 10, 2006 12:18 PM


gellen,

I thought only Canada had succumbed to the 'mushy-middle-of-the-road" p/c virus. It is "comforting" to see our former patriarchs have it worse them we do....or do they??

Posted by: Garry P. at February 10, 2006 12:20 PM


cont'd....

then again, I probably only perceived it!

Posted by: Garry P. at February 10, 2006 12:22 PM

Kyla,

You've taken me out of context.

When I make a reference to a german homosexual artist making a crucifix out of dung I'm not referring to any humbrage on my part. I for my part am a lefty athiest with lots of homosexual friends. I personaly don't give a crap if people dunk crucifixes in urine or lampon mohammed in cartoons. I generated that hypothetical for perspective.

Posted by: Jose at February 10, 2006 12:27 PM

Colin "You'd think tolerance would be a two way street!"

It rarely is. There's usually one side that's being more of an bastard than the other. C'est la vie.

Posted by: Jose at February 10, 2006 12:32 PM

Steve in BC,

There is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom from criticism. Garth Turner's speech is policitcal speech deserving of the highest deference from interference by governmental power and and governmental power should protect him from violence or threats of violence. But free speech also means that others may pillory him through their (non-defamatory) speech. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. called it the Marketplace of Ideas. Some ideas just don't sell widely. It a market; not a marketing board.

Posted by: Murray at February 10, 2006 12:35 PM

Sherwood Baker "And I thought the Europeans had finaly woken from their slumber. How pathetic, they will all be muslims before too long!"

Athiests actually. And so will a lot of the 2nd and 3rd generation children of Muslim immigrants.

Posted by: Jose at February 10, 2006 12:36 PM

Actually, weasel, what you meant to say is:

"I apologize to Kathy Shaidle for the petty ad hominem, and I realize that if it happens again, i may find my access to this blog terminated."

Are we clear?

Posted by: Kate at February 10, 2006 12:40 PM

This isn't black and white. I've watched people argue both extremes ("it's my right to say what ever the hell I want"... to "you can't say anything that might possibly offend anybody else"). The truth is (as usually) somewhere in the middle.

It's clear that there needs to be SOME limitations on free speech. I shouldn't be able to slander someone without penalty. I shouldn't be able to give away state secrets. I shouldn't be able to tell Saddam how exactly to build a bomb to eradicate Isreal. So we aren't arguing about whether or not there should be SOME limits...

On the other hand, we also aren't arguing that it isn't ok to comment on the actions of an identifiable segment of society - even if it goes so far as to piss them off. I can't count the pictures/cartoons/editorials that say George Bush and the Republican's aren't a bunch of baby killers. Nobody is burning down embassies because of that.

There needs to be some balance between a person's right to speak their mind to the right of an identifiable group in society to not be injured by those comments. HOWEVER, it's not clear to me that the publication of a cartoon with the prophet actually injures that segment of society. I've heard it argued that the reason they are so annoyed is that the face of the prophet was depicted. If that's the case, then I think the cartoon had a right to be published as imposing the religious beliefs of the minority on the majority. Just because they can't draw pictures of the prophet doesn't mean that I can't. If I want to poke fun at some ridiculous aspect of someone's religion so be it.

The fact that he had a bomb in his turban does indicate to me that the author was implying that ALL Muslims are terrorists and that's a bit like a hate crime to me (although very circumstantially) and therefore could justifiably be restricted or at least "censored" - if nothing more than for good taste. HOWEVER, once this thing became news (i.e. when the Muslim's started rioting and demonstrating, it is open season... EVERY newspaper should be showing the damn thing so that people can make their own judgement as to the offensive nature of it. I applaud Kate for showing the cartoon here (and frankly I can't see what the fuss is all about).

I condemn those parts of the media that are refusing to publish the picture because it's NEWS. HOW DARE they restrict the kinds of news I'm allowed to watch. HOW DARE they decide on my behalf what I'm allowed to see. People are rioting, burning down buildings, killing each other over some cartoon they are clearly allowed to see and we can't??? The MSM has clearly got political correctness down pat but have forgotten that they are in the business of publishing news.

Posted by: Maps Onburt at February 10, 2006 12:40 PM

Orwell was off by a few years, but was quite accurate. We've watched our basic freedoms succumb to political correctness for about 37 years. The worst offenders are the MSM, the leaders of the p/c movement. Guess it's up to the bloggers to keep the light of truth shining.
Keep up the good work. If Islamics manage to get legitimate commentary categorized as hate crime, it's going to be tough, but we won't quit.

Posted by: dmorris at February 10, 2006 12:41 PM

More El, or is that Al Misery:centuries-old blood feuds between Mohammedans.

Not, not, not in Iraq? Not George's fault? AP is not spinning this story. No mention of Bush.

But, here is some deep background; way back to a feud in the way back beyond: 7th Century AD. >>>

"Violence has erupted in the past during Ashoura, which marks the seventh-century death of Imam Hussain, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Hussain's death in a battle fuelled a rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis over who should succeed the prophet."
>>>>>


Bomber shatters Muslim holy day
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) - Shiites and Sunnis battled each other with rockets and gunfire in northwestern Pakistan on Friday, raising the death toll from two days of Muslim sectarian violence to 38, an official said. >>>
cnews

Posted by: maz2 at February 10, 2006 12:44 PM

evilprinceweasel, "No group in the history of Western civilization prior to the 20th century has a track recording of killing, persecuting, exiling, and excommunicating its opponents than the Mother Church."

I'm no fan of the Catholic chuch myself (they sided with Franco and pinned a medal on him while he executed republicans) but their list of crimes has more to do with their longevity than being more evil than their competition. Sure they were horrible back in the day but they're not colluding with fascists. They've even got the pedophile rate among priests in the US to 5%.

They've even admitted it was wrong to lock up Gaileo a few years back. But in a deft touch of comedy genius they blamed it on bad legal advice. It turns out they were never that fussed about the whole earth going around the sun business.

But on the other hand I've got two cousins (Franco spain was as catholic as fuck) who are priests and they're great guys who provide fantastic counselling and comfort to a great number of people. And they've never even sodomized me or anything.

So I wouldn't equate them with the nazi party or anything.

Posted by: Jose at February 10, 2006 12:53 PM

Maps "It's clear that there needs to be SOME limitations on free speech"

I understand that's a generaly held position but reasonable people do differ. I for one think freedom of speech divorced from action should be absolute. Its the point where nasty talk becomes nasty walk that the law should get involved.

For example the recently imprisoned cleric in the UK was distributing manuals on bomb making and openly recruiting terrorists. At that point he's not talking, he's walking.

But the whole point is moot. We've got wi-fi, broadband and thousands of blogs in what used to be very backwards countries. Trying to stop anyone from shooting their mouth off when they're pissed off is an excersize in pissing into the wind.

Eventually we'll all just get used to it.

Posted by: Jose at February 10, 2006 1:05 PM

Limits on free speech are desirable, and the law has many. You maybe liable for an untrue statements made knowing others are relying on their truth, if you lie or should have exercised more care (fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation). You may be liable for making an untrue statement about someone that causes harm (defamation). Giovernment restriction is permissible if their is a "clear and present danger" of palpable harm to individuals or the state. The expression "clear and present danger" is Holmes again. Incidentally, our chief justice is an admirer of Holmes on free speech. The boundaries of permissible speech wax and wane over the years. But offending a religion has not been seriously advocated as a standard for repression since the Enlightment and Voltaire.

Posted by: Murray at February 10, 2006 1:19 PM

Unfortunately, the web is not sacred, nor a protected free speech area.

In Sweden e.g., the government, via the secret police, has shut down a web site (web edition of a newspaper actually) for publishing the Muhammed cartoons.
And Sweden is supposed to be a free country...

In the current climate, and with current laws, there's nothing stopping the Canadian government to shut down e.g. SDA.

(Note that the first section of the Charter says that all rights and freedoms are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law ", i.e. they can be revoked or limited at any time.)

Posted by: Johan i Kanada at February 10, 2006 1:26 PM

Dmoris should be required reading in every classroom, newsroom and university. Still, some would never take off their rose colored glasses.

Posted by: maryT at February 10, 2006 1:36 PM

Heh, NoOne: All opinion offends someone. Yeah, let's do away with messy opinion altogether, talk about the weather, eh? Heh! Blue Sky in Vancouver today!!!!

And whoever above said "equal time" etc., that is a totally unworkable unweildly and undemocratic solution, just as equality of income seems nice but can only be achieved via totalitarian means; oh, I know, Canadian totalitarianism would be of a kindler gentler variety but nevertheless ....

And ya know what: it's not fair to make individual editors decide what's offensive so let's have a government department do it: let's call it The Ministry of Niceness and Sensitivity; we'll get Paul Martin to run it.

Posted by: Pedro at February 10, 2006 1:46 PM

Heh, a real life cartoon.

Israel plans to build 'museum of tolerance' on Muslim graves

By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
Published: 09 February 2006


Skeletons are being removed from the site of an ancient Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem to make way for a $150m (£86m) "museum of tolerance" being built for the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

Let's hope there are no violent demonstrations or bloggers will be calling on authorities in Canada to build "museums of tolerance" on Muslim graveyards in the name of stopping the "provocation avoidance".

Posted by: ol hoss at February 10, 2006 1:55 PM

Garry P,
You will have seen the photos from Eng. I'm sure. Well, on the blog a policeman said the BBC 'perceived' the number of protesters as 30-100 while the police in their riot gear 'perceived' closer to 2-3,000 protesters.
The CBC reports more accurately I think;
but now that I've latched onto this 'perceived' concept, I will never be sure. ;>}

Posted by: gellen at February 10, 2006 2:09 PM

My friend Elizabeth makes a great point: Muslims still have to walk past the pork chops at the A&P.

We should never bow to this bullying tactic.

"Do what I say or else somebody dies." Should result in the person who said such being the one who dies.

All the countries where violence and vandalism have occurred need to swiftly arrest the perpetrators and lock them up for a very long time. Seems most of this has been caught on camera - start arresting people.

I'd say you could make a case for conspiracy to commit murder based on the protest signs in Denmark.

Posted by: Kyla at February 10, 2006 2:21 PM

"Intifada": PC word meaning >>>> War. The writer says the US is the "profound loser". That is bhggfklt: The losers are the common people in the West Bank/Gaza Strip.


Third Intifada Imminent
Amspec | 2/10/2006 | John Batchelor

Posted on 02/10/2006 11:07:35 AM PST by Rutles4Ever

http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp

Third Intifada imminent - Friday, February 10, 2006 @ 1:24:49 AM

Spoke several excellent sources re Israel and Palestinians, and all agree that a third intifada is imminent, though one did call it a war, not an intifada. Hamas will not relent on its position that it is committed to a violent defeat of Israel. The intifada will be run by Al Aqsa from the West Bank, especially the Balata refugee camp, and by Islamic Jihad from the West Bank and Gaza. The third intifada will include suicide belts as well as the first ever rocket attacks from the West Bank into Israel.

Israel's response to the intifada is not predictable. Olmert is campaigning to the left to win as many peace-now seats as possible. Netanyahu will stay hard right and urge war and effective annexation of the territories.

Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad gain with the new intifada by establishing credibility as the street fighters, while Hamas gains by assuming the role of diplomat to the Europeans: the Putin gesture to Hamas is the beginning of the reinvention of a terror gang into a freedom collective.

The profound loser is the United States, which is backing a false witness (Abbas) and an appeaser (Olmert) and a failed formula (the Road Map) and betraying allies (the Quartet). Grim weeks ahead, then it will get worse. >>>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576032/posts

Posted by: maz2 at February 10, 2006 2:22 PM

Iraq has a high literacy rate. On our departure from Iraq eventually the best insurance for an ongoing democracy would be a free computer and high speed access in every household.

Why waste an opportunity to give newly democratized people a level playing field in case their MSM becomes as rotten as ours.

"No group in the history of Western civilization prior to the 20th century has a track recording of killing, persecuting, exiling, and excommunicating its opponents than the Mother Church."

Well, Weasel, so what? No culture/religion has an unblemished history.

No group in the 21st century has had the track record of "killing, persecuting, exiling, and excommunicating its opponents" like Islam.

Are we supposed to surrender to Dhimmitude because a thousand years ago our ancestors were mean? Cro-magnons probably killed a lot of Neandertals, should I be paralyzed with guilt?

Posted by: penny at February 10, 2006 2:24 PM

Apologies for the crude sexual references, Kate, but I still think Kathy is an extremist and weirdo.
If you have to ban me because you suddenly got a case of "provocation avoidance" all on your own, then it's been nice knowing ya!

His Unholiness, that Most Evil Prince Weasel

Posted by: evilprinceweasel at February 10, 2006 2:48 PM

This is a privately owned site, and as such, I have the right to decide how people behave here. I consider Kathy Shaidle a friend, so your comment became personal - not political or critical. Just as I wouldn't tolerate someone bashing a friend in my home in such a way, I won't tolerate it here.

Posted by: Kate at February 10, 2006 3:01 PM

In fact, I should probably address this in a more specific manner. The comment named a private person, and suggested she be sexually assaulted.

I have read similar comments about myself on other sites, most of them - not all - anonymously. That's no longer debate - it's incitement to do others harm.

Keep it in mind when you see such things written - especially about those of us with the guts to sign our names to what we write.


Posted by: Kate at February 10, 2006 3:05 PM


Kate,

You certainly don't need my support....you do very well on your own.

Just the same.....WELL SAID.

Posted by: Garry P. at February 10, 2006 3:15 PM

What's funny is cheese buying being equated with the class of civilizations.

Brave cheese buyers across the ages.

Posted by: steve in bc at February 10, 2006 3:16 PM

the cheeze thing or the Danish cookie thing, is small. it is the thinking that goes with this decision of support, (no matter how small) that is great.

we all look to the Moslem community for a sign of tolerance, or a sigh that they can question themselves. Something that doesn't equate a cartoon, to an escalation of global violence.


we don't all have the means to go and buy a new B+O stereo from Denmark... maybe the Danes do not need that so much, as to know we will not abandon our freedoms in the face of their objections.

Posted by: marc58510 at February 10, 2006 3:47 PM

That Danish paper and the other christian one screwed up. Cartoon violence against Danish embassies for Danish behaviour has no meaning or context here and doesn't make me feel sorry enough for cheese.

It's not the same here, unless you really want to stretch the similarities. Anyone who talks about endgame, clash of civilizations, line drawn in the cheese, WW5 the lego war is just using this (Shaidle ,Malkin, LGF) to keep up their old prejudices and looking for more supporters.

Bigger problems here with Stockwell Day being in charge of defending us.

Posted by: steve in bc at February 10, 2006 4:00 PM

Blessed are the cheese-makers! (Oops, does that offend a religion?)

Perhaps this will do for Danish Cheese what the Cheese Shop skit did for Wensleydale, which my British freinds tell me rescued the cheese from obscurity.

Customer:
You... do have some cheese, don't you?

Owner:
(brightly) Of course, sir. It's a cheese shop, sir. We've got...

Customer:
No no... don't tell me. I'm keen to guess.

Owner:
Fair enough.

Customer:
Uuuuuh, Wensleydale.

Owner:
Yes?

Customer:
Ah, well, I'll have some of that!

Owner:
Oh! I thought you were talking to me, sir. Mister Wensleydale, that's my name.

(pause)

Posted by: Murray at February 10, 2006 4:00 PM


there was an ad here in the west, like this...

"with cheeze, you've got choice"

and I agree.... "ummmmmm"

Posted by: marc58510 at February 10, 2006 4:08 PM

;;;;;;; more LGF, eh? Kraut is from Canada, eh? >>>


Krauthammer: Not Moderates, But Hypocrites

Charles Krauthammer dispenses the straight truth about Muslim “moderates” who share the goals and ideology of the radicals: Curse of the Moderates.

What passes for moderation in the Islamic community — “I share your rage but don’t torch that embassy” — is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.

Have any of these “moderates” ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don’t are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.

And these “moderates” are aided and abetted by Western “moderates” who publish pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with elephant dung and celebrate the “Piss Christ” (a crucifix sitting in a jar of urine) as art deserving public subsidy, but who are seized with a sudden religious sensitivity when the subject is Muhammad. >> more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901434.html

Posted by: maz2 at February 10, 2006 4:27 PM

As someone who has been around for a while, I find it rather odd just how society evolves (or de-evolves). When I went to university back in '70 (never show a first year where the Engineer's beer fridge is) the place was supposedly an oasis of enlightened thought. The commies in the arts department set up their table with red tablecloth every other week to show how great Albanian life was. Engineers hired "Lady Godiva" to ride a horse through the commons and Comp Sci students wandered the halls late at night with armloads of fanfold paper.

The media was always looking for fresh stories and angles to cover in an attempt to raise an eyebrow or two. The Us and Them was the cold war but nobody got stoned (not that way) for thinking Lenin was a good guy.

Fast forward 35 years or so and we see so much politically correctness and secularism today that students at university are allowed to say or do what they want... as long as it fits the guidelines and the media is worried about offending people who don't even watch, hear or read the offending article.

I think the cartoon deal is a rouse. I don't know what is up but I find it odd that it took from September to now for the spontaneous uprising and indignation. It probably took a while to find that many Dannish flags.

And last but now least the rant of Ms Shaidle. The lady is not afraid to speak her mind and does get passionate about it but the (poor) joke about her sex life was to say the least tacky, especially in a public forum. Kathy is a person that I would enjoy sharing a brew (or a double double) with and shoot the breeze with along with Kate, Duke, Angry and a few other straight shooters.

I just noticed that I am bloviating so I'll shut up now... have a good weekend.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at February 10, 2006 5:20 PM

For info on moderate Islam try this site:http://www.akdn.org/index.html
I knew a chap years ago who was an Ismaili Muslim, believe me, they are very different from the fellows burning embassies right now.

Posted by: dmorris at February 10, 2006 5:50 PM

dmorris,

I echo your observations of Ismaili Muslims. I have dealt with many and they were shrewd, common sense and pragmatic. They even gave me cordial Christmas presents. I expect they feel sickened by all this.

Posted by: Murray at February 10, 2006 6:04 PM

dmorris; Very interesting reading but I still wonder why there is no outcry from these muslims as the radicals are giving all a bad name.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at February 10, 2006 6:05 PM

Kate:

I can see your faculties of reason are deteriorating with your anger... re-read my post and yours and then see if I truly suggested a crime...sounds a little like the shrill feminists you love to decry..only when cornered though!?!

I voluntarily ban myself!

Posted by: evilprinceweasel at February 10, 2006 6:22 PM

tomax offers evilprinceweasel some belly button lint as a peace offering...

Posted by: tomax at February 10, 2006 6:34 PM

Thanks Kate.....pointing out the significant difference between the Spineless Socialists of Europe and the Independent Defenders of freedom in the struggling Asian and African nations.

Posted by: PGP at February 10, 2006 6:55 PM

Just in case any christian didn't think islamic law applied to them check out what happened to this poor unfortunate. Lashes anyone?http://www.afrol.com/News2002/sud004_stoning.htm

Posted by: greg at February 10, 2006 7:21 PM

Sorry, I should add the stoning was successfully appealed however a sentence of seventy- five lashes was imposed and carried out upon pronouncement of sentence
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAFR540052002?open&of=ENG-SDN

Posted by: greg at February 10, 2006 7:27 PM

steve in bc,

"Does freedom of speech apply to Garth Turner or do we not have an open political culture?"

Anyone can say whatever they want. It doesn't mean that there won't be any ramifications. These ramifications, if any, tend to happen a lot faster the closer you get to home base (family, friends, workplace, etc).

I think that the PM made a good choice in not picking Mr. Turner for cabinet - and Mr. Turner, utilizing his freedoms, proved why that choice was a good one.

Posted by: ural at February 10, 2006 7:32 PM

hey evilprinceweasel

Judging by your comments you seem to be quit an asshole, so for that reason I thought I'd just take this chance to correct you. The Christian Church is the body of Christ so the term Mother Church doesn't really apply. Sounded kinda soviet though, nice try.

Posted by: Ryan at February 10, 2006 7:51 PM

Penny "On our departure from Iraq eventually the best insurance for an ongoing democracy would be a free computer and high speed access in every household."

Actually the Islamic radicals do quite well on the internet.

I'd agree that wired Iraqis would be a good thing but its not going to happen anytime soon. The promised reconstruction money is being yanked. The Iraqis are just going to have to sort themselves out.

Posted by: Jose at February 10, 2006 8:09 PM

Designing Public Restrooms for Muslim Cultures
One such group of people who have special requirements when it comes to using restrooms are Muslims, who make up one billion of the world population...
...The following are some important considerations in the design of restrooms for this group of users.
Muslim’s toileting practices could be compounded into six areas— entering, seclusion, the prohibition of facing the Qiblah (which is the Ka’abah in Mecca), squatting, cleaning and stepping out...

http://www.restrooms.org/page03ar.html

Posted by: JM at February 10, 2006 8:48 PM

"Designing Public Restrooms for Muslim Cultures"

With rules like this "writing your name in snow" could become an X-treme Sport.

Posted by: ural at February 10, 2006 9:02 PM

Tex-can: The Ismailis probably don't speak up because they're afraid of reprisals from the Shiites. If my relatives were in countries where they hold sway, I might think twice about offending them, too.

Posted by: dmorris at February 10, 2006 9:26 PM

Muslim Protest Photo Gallery

The Jawa Report has a photo gallery of the Danish cartoon protests, in more than a dozen countries around the globe. Really brings home the extent of this cosmic temper tantrum. >> via LGF


February 10, 2006
Moderate Muslim Speak Out Against Intolerance Across Globe

The following is a gallery of news photos taken at hundreds of protests, all of them held TODAY, in dozens of countries around the world. Trust me, you'll want to scroll through the whole thing. Might take a bit to load. >>
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156837.php

Posted by: maz2 at February 10, 2006 9:43 PM

I'm just asking ... really don't know. Do we, in Canada, have any Muslim group(s) denouncing the violence by the extremists?

Posted by: ural at February 10, 2006 10:24 PM

Ural: "Do we, in Canada, have any Muslim group(s) denouncing the violence by the extremists"

Well yes, haven't you been watching the news? The peaceful and innocent Muslims have been doing silent protest marches denouncing the extremist cartoon attacks on their beloved profi...err prophets.

Posted by: tomax at February 10, 2006 10:36 PM

Re: "Designing Public Restrooms for Muslim Cultures"

Holy Doodoo! And some people get uptight with the "Employees must wash..." signs.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at February 10, 2006 11:02 PM

tomax,

I can't tell if your serious.

I used to read the paper every morning. I stopped when I moved to BC about 20 years ago - there was nothing in the rags here that made sense (NDP view). I stopped watching TV news about 7 years ago ... same type of reason ... if I wanted to watch infomercials, there are ones better targeted to me.

I am watching the Olympic opening - I'm sure as good as Italy does we will do better for the 2010s.

I'm very prideful of our athletes.

Posted by: ural at February 10, 2006 11:13 PM

Ural, no, just messin' with ya, and no again, there was one Muslim group who denounced what happened, but it was a small squeak, I forgot who, what or where they said anything.

I think they are more afraid of these extreemists than Allah, who is suppose to be just.

Then again it is in their creed to kill all infedels, that way Allah will spare their souls, or something akin to that.

Posted by: tomax at February 11, 2006 12:04 AM

Got choked when the CDN's came in ... it's going to be a great 2 weeks.

Posted by: ural at February 11, 2006 12:06 AM

As for the Olympics, well I haven't watched one since, gee I can't remember. I think 1976. Although I did watch Canada/US hockey game.

I feel sorry for the athletes because it's a fixed competition.

Like I said, those East German girls sure do look pretty with moustaches...

Posted by: tomax at February 11, 2006 12:07 AM

tomax,

Thanks for your response. I think that the E German (and Russian) girls lost the moustaches when they started to do the testing.

I be switching between the CDN and US stations ... it's real hard to say who gives the better overall coverage.

VANCOUVER in 2010.

Posted by: ural at February 11, 2006 12:36 AM

"I feel sorry for the athletes because it's a fixed competition."

Whenever you have "Judges" instead of metrics - it's fixed or can be ... for anything.

Posted by: ural at February 11, 2006 12:56 AM

The most sensored country in the free world is the good old U.S. of A. Who's more paranoid than the U.S.A.? China,Iraq.......You people on this blog talk about freedom like you're experts. Your brand of freedom is good old U.S.A. freedom which means if you point out the rich (10%) live privaleged lives and are spoiled plus they get a lot of perks 90% of Americans don't get you're anti American.

Posted by: ok4ua at February 11, 2006 10:02 AM

tomax,tex-can,ural; Let us not wax too pious over the lack of commentary by moderate Islamics. In any community, whether defined by race, religion, profession, or political persuasion, it is very difficult to find moderates who are willing to speak out publicly. Moderates of any sort are usually too busy earning a living and doing all the things a good citizen does to make this country great, to concern themselves with the actions of the radical element of their particular group. Then we have to factor in the, in the Islamic case, very real factor of violent reprisal.
Try to get a doctor or lawyer to speak out publicly against any of their fellows who commit malpractice, before there's a bandwagon to jump on. Won't happen. Their only risk is censure by their fellow professionals, and maybe a snub at the golf club. Where were all the courageous civil servants and politicians speaking out against Adscam and other Liberal malfeasance? Very few and far between. All they risked was loss of a career. Moderate Islamics face the very real possibility of being murdered for speaking out, and in Canada, the perpetrators would probably get off with house arrest or an apology for their tender sensibilities being damaged. Back in the sixties, I had an Italian acquaintance whose business was being extorted by that famous Sicilian cadre of ne'er do wells. I said to him, "call the cops". His reply, "don't be fucking stupid, they'd kill me."
Gee, where were all the moderate Italians? Earning a living, being good citizens.
As I posted before, we all have to resist, by whatever means,the violent lunatics of the extremist Islamic element, but bitching at the moderates, from our snug, secure position, isn't going to help. All it does is malign people who are just trying to get on with their lives.

Posted by: dmorris at February 11, 2006 10:49 AM

dmorris: While you make some good points, are you suggesting we roll over and go back to "earning a living, being good citizens"?

I missed something here. I thought being a good citizen is speaking out when things aren't right.

Like the old saying (i'll probably wrench it) "for evil to prevail, good men must do nothing".

The doctor or lawyer example is a classic. Yes doctors and lawyers do speak out and or go through the proper means to exposing an issue.

While there are roadblocks we as a society have allowed, like unions, namely teacher unions, it is an injustice.

Well heck, the Liberals are a good example. I wonder how many "good citizens" worked for these scum bags knowing full well they were screwing Joe Canadian out of his hard earned tax money.

Difference is it just takes one person to stand up and "this is wrong" to get the ball rolling. The key is knowing when to stand up.

I nearly lost my job over an incident where I said to the boss I can't do something (like sign names on warranty forms) because it wasn't right.

Was I scared? Yes, was I in danger of loosing my job? Yes. Did it make tensions worse at work? Yes.

Can I look in the mirror and do I sleep better because of it?

Yes.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at February 11, 2006 11:58 AM

Tomax; Not for a minute do I suggest we "roll over". My point is that it is sometimes very dangerous for persons in different communities to speak up in public. Where, for instance, are all the "law abiding citizens who just happen to like motorcycles", speaking out against the gangster actions of their fellow Hells Angels? (joke)
I agree about Edmund burkes' famous saying, and we here on SDA are the men and women speaking out against radical Islam. But we cannot expect moderate Islams to risk the lives of themselves and their families by making public statements. We can all be grateful for the blogosphere that allows anyone to express their opinion, it's a lot better than in past times when we couldn't vent. Yes, being a good citizen means speaking out, but again I make the point that few in any community do, especially in close knit communities, where one has to face his fellows on a daily basis. Again, most citizens do not face the possibility of being murdered for their opinions. Moderate Islamics, like my former acquaintance in the Italian community, do. Talk to and get to know the Ismaili Muslims in your area, I did, and found them to be the same as the rest of us. Good people, different religion. I once took a stand against the union I was then a member of, and ended up losing my job over it. Best job I ever had. Principles= unemployment line. When I looked in the mirror, I saw a guy without a job. Didn't sleep too well either as it was right in the middle of a recession. If there had been the real probabillity of being killed, maybe I wouldn't have been so brave, (like the moderate Hells Angels.)I enjoy reading your posts, keep up the good debate, don't expect too much of people, they'll often let you down.

Posted by: dmorris at February 11, 2006 12:40 PM

dmorris, I understand where you are coming from and also you hit the nail on the head to what I was talking about:

"I once took a stand against the union I was then a member of,"

Unions have become a vice on Western Democracy. They were good when they started, sticking up for the "little guy" but have since the 50's and 60's become pro-communist leftist elite societies.

This recent election showed their leadership's true colours: vote for Bloc than Conservative.

I for one understand about standing for principles, and I for one will say I haven't arrived as in I ain't isn't aren't perfect.

SO yes, there is pressure to remain quiet, almost "Canadian". Hense that is why we got such a screw up laughing stock of a country.

It would nice if wars were won on ice, but reality is, even our vaunted godless society which substituted G-d for G-sky, and now we see even those images are being tarnished.

But yes, we need someone to step up and say "this is wrong". I certainly hope Harper does, but it will take more than just one man to fix this mess we call Kanada.

cheers
tom

Posted by: toamx at February 11, 2006 3:47 PM

Tom: agreed. Let's hope Mr. Harper lasts long enough to turn this country around. A full term in a majority govt. would help. The MSM is having a great time with Emerson, etc. Once Paul Demarais chooses the new leader of the Liberals, (ie someone who will take orders,) we could be in for a very short ride. Those of us who can, will protest as long and loud as we can.

Posted by: dmorris at February 11, 2006 4:39 PM

Kate, I think that the cartoons themselves are not the context of this "news" story.

The context is the stories or the events that have led up to these particular cartoons becoming big news.

Texas Canuck, I think (and fear) that the visit to Pakistan by GWB in a few weeks may also be part of the context of these events in the ME. I too always try to consider the source and the timing.

Also Kate, IMHO you are WAY too nice to commenters like evilprinceweasel. I doubt very much he will really ban himself but I'm hoping.

Also to Kathy Shaidle, IMHO the story of all stories about "provocation avoidance" is the one Eason Jorden (the then head of CNN) wrote in a NY Times op ed after the fall of Baghdad about how CNN had been intimidated and blackmailed for years by Saddam.

That story was HUGE and it was quickly buried by MSM.

Posted by: no bozos allowed at February 12, 2006 4:56 PM
Site
Meter