sda2.jpg

March 6, 2006

Freedom From Responsibility

(moved to top for Rawlco radio listeners - scroll down for new entries)

Via reader Michael Stuber;

capitalistpiglet.jpg

An offering by the University of Saskatchewan publication, the Sheaf, which chose not to publish the Jyllands-Posten cartoons out of respect for Islam.

Read this too, from former Sheaf news editor Jeremy Warren.

Related - Too many Christians, not enough lions? (link fixed)

Lost Budgie weighs in.


Update - from the comments, University of Saskatchewan President Peter MacKinnon has reportedly issued the following by email;

I feel I must publicly communicate with our campus community on what I have just seen in the student newspaper.

In the February 23 edition of the Sheaf, the editors explained that they would not publish the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. It is surprising that they did not exercise similar restraint in their decision to publish 'Capitalist Piglet' in the March 2 issue of the paper. This is a cartoon that is certain to cause distress to members of our community. It has divisive shock value only and does nothing to advance the understanding or debate for which universities should be distinguished.

The Sheaf should apologize to us all.

Peter MacKinnon
President


Monday March 6 update: The cartoonist "Y!th" responds in the comments - after a fashion. Just keep scrolling

The heat is on now - Rawlco radio news is reporting the story, as is the local CTV affiliate. The story out of the Sheaf is that the publication of this cartoon was an error - a breakdown in the editorial review process, or something to that effect - and that an apology will be forthcoming in the next issue. (One is already up at their website). The managing editor Will Robbins,has tendered his resignation, but so far, hasn't spoken publicly.

I'll tell you why I'm not buying this - the Sheaf was out for days before the explanation and apology were offered. Editorial mis-step? Does the staff not read their own paper after publication? A true error would have been proactively addressed and an apology/retraction issued immediately. It would have also been yanked from the website.

Not until the cartoon was featured here, and the media began to pick up on the story did anyone see fit to respond.

A new blog, Boycott the Sheaf has awarded the "ULTIMATE HYPOCRITICAL
ADVERTISING AWARD" to McNally Robinson Booksellers, who pulled the Western Standard magazine from the shelves because they contained the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in the context of a news story.

Mar.7 Update
Saskatoon Star Phoenix has now picked up the story.

Posted by Kate at March 6, 2006 2:22 PM
TrackBacks

Makes me proud to be a U of S student from Black Sheep Press
This sort of thing really represents the mind set of a lot of western "progressives" as they call themselves, who seem to have a systemic loathing of themselves and their culture and history. This self-loathing means that it is exceptable to say anyt... [Read More]

Tracked on March 3, 2006 5:01 PM

Cartoon controviersies from across the border from Sister Toldjah
… in Canada. Via Lost Budgie: The University of Saskatchewan publication The Sheaf chose not to publish the famous Mohammed cartoons “out of respect for Islam.” They seem to have no problem at all though, publishing a cartoon of... [Read More]

Tracked on March 4, 2006 5:12 PM

Muslims could get upset about this too from Deborah Gyapong
Wouldn't if be ironic if the Saskatchewan student newspaper that refused to reprint the Danish cartoons "out of respect for Islam" gets a fatwa against them because it prints a disgusting, hurtful cartoon of Jesus. After all, Jesus, too, is revered a... [Read More]

Tracked on March 5, 2006 3:17 PM

Brave, brave Sir Robbins [posted by Allah] from Alarming News
Brave -- and original: The student newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan is apologizing for printing a cartoon depicting Jesus performing a sex act on a capitalist pig. The comic, which was published in last Thursday’s edition of the “Sheaf,”... [Read More]

Tracked on March 7, 2006 10:37 PM

Today's MUST READ from LeatherPenguin: "Umbrage" is Just a Start
So there's this shitty little student rag published in a corner of that vast, politically correct, hippie-infested wasteland beyond our northern border, that took a "principled" stand concerning the Mo-fuckhead-ahmed cartoons, which were a subject cove... [Read More]

Tracked on March 8, 2006 8:52 AM

CARTOON HYPOCRISY IN CANADA from Michelle Malkin
The Sheaf, a student newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan, refuses to run the Mohammed Cartoons, but doesn't think twice about running a cartoon depicting Jesus doing this (warning - it's vile):... [Read More]

Tracked on March 8, 2006 10:44 AM

On Jesus and Porcine Fellation from Grandinite
Kate blew the lid off a story about the student newspaper at USask publishing a cartoon of Jesus fellating a pig, and it’s reached statospheric proportions, having been picked up by Canada.com and Fark. It looks like plenty of readers of the c... [Read More]

Tracked on March 8, 2006 2:43 PM

Christian Cartoon Crusades! from MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
APOSTASY! BLASPHEMY! Burn the embassies! Burn their flag! Boycott Canadian products! Boycott their beer…and…and…I dunno, whatever the hell else they make! Goofy movies, or hockey or something! I just got a text message that sai... [Read More]

Tracked on March 8, 2006 7:09 PM

University Paper Won't Run Muhammad Cartoons, But No Problem Running A Disgussting Mocking Jesus... from RightWinged.com
h/t Michelle Malkin I don't even want to post the image on my blog because it's so disgusting, but The Sheaf, a student newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan who wouldn't run the Mohammad images, had no problem mocking Jesus... [Read More]

Tracked on March 8, 2006 11:39 PM

looking for the piglet, eh? from chou chope
howdy, ya'll i thought i was extremely popular with the... [Read More]

Tracked on March 9, 2006 7:57 AM

Sheaf cartoonist unapologetic from Marturia.net
The story Kate broke about the Capitalist Piglet cartoon published by the Sheaf at the UofS has took a new turn yesterday with the publication of this week's Sheaf. While the former editor (who resigned over the cartoon publication) is... [Read More]

Tracked on March 10, 2006 11:31 AM

Contemptuous cartoons of Jesus are nothing new from Magic Statistics
At the latter is posted a response John received from The Sheaf cartoonist, Jeff MacDonald, who sounds like he has a wild imagination. That's a long-winded introduction to a reminder that crude drawings mocking our Lord have been around for a very... [Read More]

Tracked on March 11, 2006 10:28 AM

Bestiality is now free speech? from reverse_vampyr
Do you find it as odd as I do that a "university" newspaper has no problem publishing drawings of bestiality? I suppose next we'll see an entire comics page featuring the Kama Sutra - as performed by the Pope (and leaders of other religions) - on an ... [Read More]

Tracked on March 14, 2006 3:19 PM

Comments

Well... he was Jewish, so kosher'd be in. Why publish something like and not the Muslim parodies? I'd be worried about Christians marching in protest and possibly burning down the University, but they'd all stop at the front entrance, remember their tax dollars paid for the school, and just end going into one of the Campus bars for a drink.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 3, 2006 11:31 AM

ahhh students, smart enough to figure out which morality is "correct"

so much smarter than the rest of us.

Posted by: Fred at March 3, 2006 11:37 AM

I get your point, nevertheless, I would not want to be of the comic all star duo, when the day comes that they stand before the Judge of all the earth, and they will; you can take that fact to the bank!

Posted by: pastorwally at March 3, 2006 11:42 AM

This is why we love the blogosphere, think you would ever see this in the MSM? Have you tried to get a comment from the sheaf Kate?

Posted by: Platty at March 3, 2006 11:45 AM

hmmmm....

deference to islam, baseless slander against christianity.

I am not a christian, but this cartoon is pointlessly insulting to many people.

There is no way to coherently oppose the printing of the danish cartoons and print this. This is complete hypocrisy.

I support free expression universally, but to deny it for some ideas and then to print this is absurd.

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 11:47 AM

Good to see the U of S is turning out lots of future Dipper slaves for the Caliphate. Perhaps it is time to consider letting the University fundraise privately and get off the taxpayer teat. I am sure the Wahhabi sects could find some cash for like-minded progressives.

Posted by: Shawn at March 3, 2006 11:57 AM

Having received my BA from the U of S (Saskatoon) in 1966, I am very disappointed with this biased and unbalanced stance of the Sheaf. This rag obviously respects only Muslims but not Christians or Jews. And so continues, the "I hate the West" syndrome of the so-called Academia and MSM. The left suffers from a gigantic inferiority complex.

Posted by: Robert Bedet at March 3, 2006 11:57 AM

Just my humble opinion but I think it makes the cartoonist and editor look stupid as opposed to causing any genuine insult to Christianity. Why I would fire the editor is obviously they're a complete and utter moron and are doing a disservice to the student body by not performing their editorial duties by covering an dpresenting information that is useful to students. The Mohammed cartoons asked some serious questions about the acceptance of certain values in Islam that need debate - specifically the fact a suicide bomber would earn 72 virgins. This cartoon has no value whatsoever, asks no deep meaningful questions and is an insult to the intelligence of EVERYONE who reads it.

Posted by: Matthew Baldwin at March 3, 2006 11:57 AM

Proof of the late former BC Judge and Vancouver Sun Columnist, Les Bewley's oft reported contention that we could replace all Liberal Arts Colleges / Faculties with Library Cards.

Posted by: John Chittick at March 3, 2006 11:58 AM

Is it 72 virgins they get? I always thought it was 19. When did it go up?

Posted by: Bagadonitz at March 3, 2006 12:00 PM

Actually, I would hope that muslims would be offended by this as well, given that they "honour" Jesus as a prophet.

But, of course, the chances of any muslim organizations (or any institution of significance) making an issue of this are slim to none.

Everyone knows that student papers are overwhelmingly staffed by hippie/ndp/post-modern types and therefore pay little attention to them anyway.

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 12:05 PM

Kate: This is a wonderful example of the convoluted reasoning of the leftist rabble who "think" they are for free speech. They are so drunk on the freedom of our society that they've lost all perspective. They are the spoiled brats of virtually unlimited freedoms, who see Christians as more dangerous than Muslim Fanatics and Free Enterprise as more dangerous than coersive socialism. The cartoon you feature is a picture into the minds of these Socialist Utopians. They are completely intolerant while preaching tolerance; hateful while preaching acceptance, coersive while preaching peace, and despotic in their approach to freedom.

As long as they are a minority, we are safe.

Posted by: Debris Trail at March 3, 2006 12:13 PM

Just curious, how many of you are university grads that would have considered themselves liberal, until after a few years of maturity when you became conservative?

Here's one.

Anyone else?

What do you think about this idea floating out there that the Marxists and Leftists consciously took hold of the universities.

If you're a Liberal, how do you deny this?

Posted by: Doug at March 3, 2006 12:15 PM

Wow, mind numbing stupidity and cowardice - what a combination.
Can you imagine what self-indulgent ass would think this was witty social comment? I have no problem with disgusting or outrageous humour, I'm a big South Park fan, but satire has to provide insight and it has to be funny.

Posted by: nazz rune at March 3, 2006 12:16 PM

Editorial Policy? Shmeditorial Smolicy? The Sheaf, a voice for Saskatchewan "progressives" since 1912. +

"The Sheaf will not publish any racist, sexist, homophobic, or libelous material."


What is the editorial policy of the newspaper?

The Managing Editor(s) have the right to veto any submission they deem unfit for the Society newspaper.

In determining this they will decide if the article or artwork would be of interest to a significant portion of the society and benefit the welfare of the readers.

The Sheaf will not publish any racist, sexist, homophobic, or libelous material. +
http://www.thesheaf.com/about/

Posted by: maz2 at March 3, 2006 12:22 PM

It's nice to see cartoons like this. The more the left reveals their stupidity and bias, the better it is.
Sadly, they need to have it pointed out to them, because the University teaches them what to think, not how to think.

Posted by: virgil at March 3, 2006 12:24 PM

I guess if it is offence they were trying to achieve, then mission accomplished.

I hope the Dean of the Univesrsity and Alimni supporters are reading this right now. I have 4 sons. One of them has a pending enrollment application sitting on someones desk right now. In light of this double standard, perhaps it is time to rethink which institution deserves our hard earned money and support!

I guess we are closer to the end than I thought:

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God" 2Tim 3:1-4
Not surprised but disappointed

Posted by: Not Surprised at March 3, 2006 12:25 PM

Don't give me this freedom of expression bullsh*t.Western Standard and others are printing these and other insulting pieces to become part of the story and tap it for all the notoriety and free publicity they can get their greedy little hands on.
Wouldn't it be sweet irony if some crazy christians blew up the U of S?

Posted by: Canadian Observer at March 3, 2006 12:25 PM

After having a quick look around the paper's site it is quite clear that these kids are too stupid to know any better. One seems to think that the use of the word f*ck is somehow good writing. Like many students they are out to shock and be noticed.
I for one am not willing to pay any attention to these children while they act out.
Though it is troubling to see the state of the student paper it should not come as a shock. I would enjoy the opportunity to draft the lot. A little drill and PT might go a long way to turning them into productive citizens. National service is an excellent solution for a bad upbringing and lack of manners. It also tends to put a damper on whingeing and moaning.

Posted by: Mr. C.J. Mullan at March 3, 2006 12:30 PM

I think the problem of the predominantly leftist academia in Canada is a result of there not being a proper mix of private and non-private universities in Canada.
The funding for the non-private universities should be discontinued. It would be a good experience for these institutions of higher learning to become more self sufficient when it comes to fund raising.
Perhaps we would see more nobel prizes issued to academic staff as a result of it, since they would have to hussle to produce truly well educated people and to become more prolific in doing research.

Posted by: Robert Bedet at March 3, 2006 12:34 PM

JC is such a nice target.

HE made good grist for the mill, in the "Life of Brian." Loved the stuff about the crucified doing the two step from the cross singing:

"Always look at the bright side of death."

Alternately, the guys at the back of the crowd during the sermon on the Beatitudes saying to each other:

"What did HE say, 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'?" Then expositorily positing that Christ didn't mean cheesemakers per se but had a wider net to include "all those involved in the dairy industry".

Enough to make one be seized by mad cow disease, I say!!

I didn't see all the Christians in Europe
during the Monty Python 1960s rise up and burn down British embassies across the continent.

Fortunately, for the West there is this concept called forgiveness, rather than the dispensation of so called Divine justice by its proponents.

So if you go to Church on Sunday it is because God has adopted you as HIS sons and daughters.

In short, you belong to the forgiven "Bigger Bastards Club"; which includes the usual assortment of hypocrites, moneygrubbers, the sick, disturbed, failures, 'normal people' and the occassional saint. Its members are those who recognize to varying degrees their need for redemption.

Now if I got arrogant, we would send the author of cartoon about two cents of lead travelling at high speed for being an offensive son of bitch and send them off to meet their Maker.

This of course presumes that one can arrogate to oneself what the Divine mind is thinking; which may be a greater leap of faith than the proposition of faith itself. It takes a bit of a simpleton to suggest to God: "Hey your sitting in my seat, so get the HELL out MY way."

Of course, the cartoon is intended to be provocative; but there is nothing there that says you have to 'take the bait' and get all exercised about it. The best that can be said about the cartoon is to simply ignore it.

Yep, Jesus in bed with the capitalists and manifest destiny etc, etc. It is trite Marxian drivel. No mature person of faith would be offended by another's stupidity. It is not in the Constitution but freedom of speech also includes the freedom to be a jackass, something JC rode on, if I recall!

Yep, I'm bucking for you. HEE HAW.

Now back to financial planning, like a good little capitalist because after all they screw everybody. Oh please.

Somebody direct this moron to the parable of the talents.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 3, 2006 12:35 PM

"What do you think about this idea floating out there that the Marxists and Leftists consciously took hold of the universities." [?]

In a university setting, today, it is almost impossible to present an argument in favour of capitalism, western forms of government, the beneficial contributions of the united states or the u.k., or western culture without being accused of being sexist, racist, facist, uneducated, or a redneck.

Every time, during my years at school, that I had something good to say about, for example, free trade, I was greeted by horror and rage by some members of the faculty.

Oddly enough, most of the biased majority of faculty were from the 60's baby-boom period, whereas most of the reasonable ones were either older (still holding to the traditions of free debate) or gen x (cynical about socialist plattitudes).

But overall, you are very right that the atmosphere on (most) university campuses is hostile to free expression and suffocated by political correctness.

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 12:36 PM

Pator Wally, are you the wild man from Winnipeg?

Posted by: soup at March 3, 2006 12:37 PM

Sorry, should be pastor Wally!

Posted by: soup at March 3, 2006 12:37 PM

Maybe i'm a little slow but I'm not quite sure what point they are trying to make.

Posted by: soup at March 3, 2006 12:38 PM

When I was at Queen's, I wouldn't call myself totally a lefty because I was still socially conservative, but I was a Marxist in terms of the-capitalists-are-all-crooks type, and I was quite a feminist, if you subtract the abortion and lesbian platforms from it (which, as I found out, was very difficult to do).

One of the things I am most ashamed of in my life is when, as a teaching assistant in a sociology class, I let the other girls belittle the one boy who dared speak up and say that maybe day care wasn't the best thing for all children, and maybe we should think that a mom might, just might, want to stay home. And I remember marking his papers very critically, because he was so SEXIST.

I wish I could find him now and apologize.

I am so embarrassed of who I was then. I consider my education one of the worst frauds in history. And I have no idea what I am going to do with my children's education. I hope they go into the sciences.

Posted by: SheilaG at March 3, 2006 12:45 PM

"Don't give me this freedom of expression bullsh*t.Western Standard and others are printing these and other insulting pieces to become part of the story and tap it for all the notoriety and free publicity they can get their greedy little hands on.
Wouldn't it be sweet irony if some crazy christians blew up the U of S?"

So there is a problem with Newspapers reporting news?

Or is there a problem with newspapers showing people images that are the subject of the news?

If some "crazy christians" blow up anything, it will be the fault of the people that commit the crime, not the people who publish the cartoon. Just like it was the fault of people who rioted for the riots in Iran, not the fault of the Danes.

But I doubt it will happen.

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 12:46 PM


It would appear, at a glance, that these leftish students regard fellatio as praying.

I suppose when one considers the obsession they have with sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, workshops on masturbation and so on, it's not surprising that perverted sex is a religion to them. Orgasm is a 'rapture' of sorts ... even better ... you can go through over and over again.

If a parasite happens to form, just vacuum it right of there and carry on with poplulation reduction.

Posted by: Duke at March 3, 2006 12:48 PM

This is a perfect example of why there should be no restrictions of freedom of expression.

If they can't print it, we don't know what they are thinking and are thus unable to make informed decisions about them and their actions.

"the Sheaf", I know you now.
"UoS", I know your students and faculty now.

I find this "cartoon" highly offensive, but it has told me what I need to know.

Posted by: foobius at March 3, 2006 12:50 PM

I guess the proper way to show my displeasure with this cartoon is to hunt down the cartoonist and cut off his/her head while yelling 'G-d is great'.

I'll make sure to get right on that, after I sell my soul to the devil of course. I hear he's got a good deal going on Alf pogs.

The editors of the sheaf are cowards. Cowards.

Posted by: Defense Guy at March 3, 2006 12:52 PM

Mr. C.J. Mullen
"I for one am not willing to pay any attention to these CHILDREN while they act out."

Let's see, the age of the university student is between 18-30. Last time I checked this is old enough to be treated as an adult with consequences in any other context. While what they do here is "childish" along with a few other more colorful adjectives I could use...they are not children.

Nothing will ne done about this as it is obvious that the academic and media institutions of this province and nation are cowards when it comes to facing a real threat to free speech from the radical Muslims but bold when it comes to offending and insulting those who have until now been some of their most ardent supporters.

The irony of it all is that if those of us who are of the Christian or Jewish faith were to protest or question this cartoon, we would be insulted and derided for questioning their rights to free speech.

"Draft the lot."...The sooner the better Mr. Mullen, you can have them. Get them off the streets and out of academia...they are an embarassment to those who fought to give them the right to free speech. With any freedom comes a measured responsibility... mature behavior understands this.
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 3, 2006 12:54 PM

If Islamic terrorism has taught us nothing else it is that is you blow things up you get your way! Maybe Christianity could take this lesson to heart and get some respect. Oh, wait, "thou shall not kill." Too bad, thought I was on to something for a sec!

Posted by: Mr. C.J. Mullan at March 3, 2006 12:55 PM

Actually, go to www.thesheaf.com and check out the most recent print version (March 2). Not only is this cartoon on there, but 4 of 5 of the cartoons have some negative view about Christianity.

Brave, independent, progressive souls indeed.

Posted by: Brad at March 3, 2006 12:56 PM

Hi everyone, I'm a health care student at the University of Sask. and was pretty disgusted that my student paper would print these. Although the paper has never really printed anything informational or even entertaining this has really crossed my line and the lines of a lot of students. The Sheaf, however, doesn't really take criticism well and rarely publishes letters that cast it in a negative light. I was hoping that maybe if they received a large volume, they'd print some, or maybe even an apology.
The Sheaf: editor@thesheaf.com
or failing that, let the University president, Peter Mackinnon know about it:
peter.mackinnon@usask.ca
If you could write even a small message about your displeasure, it'd really help out the students on campus.

Posted by: Michael S at March 3, 2006 1:05 PM

Disgusting hypocrisy. The Thugs not only are winning this battle, they are converting new thugs. These students are brainwashed idiots who think they actually have something to say. Time to wake up, fellow Westerners. We are at war.

Posted by: Jeff in NC at March 3, 2006 1:14 PM

Jeff in NC
We are indeed at war on two fronts with Islam and with our own misguided, mentally disordered Left.

We must beat the Left before we can beat anyone else. They are the 'enemy within' and are a dangerous as any other enemy sworn to end out western way of life.

Posted by: Duke at March 3, 2006 1:28 PM

Michael S
I will be happy to take your suggestion and support the students who find this has crossed the line by writing both the rag and Mr Mackinnon.
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatham at March 3, 2006 1:31 PM

Maranatha - Thanks. Despite what the Sheaf shows, it doesn't represent all the students on campus, it doesn't represent hardly any of us at all. The University is generally a fine institution, but this is putting a bad name on the students and the entire province.

Posted by: Michael S at March 3, 2006 1:38 PM

Dang, I must be getting old because I just browsed the Sheaf's latest edition (to see if there was anything meaningful) and found out they have a Carnival of Sex there! There must be some really long cold winter nights up in Saskabush.

In my day (arrrgh!) I thought the Engineer's annual Lady Godiva ride through the commons area (in april)was riske. Our tax dollars at work. I'm also sure that there is more than one set of parents that have either sold the farm (literally) or spent their retirement trying to get their young educated.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at March 3, 2006 1:41 PM

I had the pleasure of attending a speech by Salman Rushdie last night at Claremont McKenna College. As someone who has personal experience of Islamic 'sensitivity,' he had some interesting things to say about the Danish cartoon controversy. To paraphrase in no particular order (as I was unable to record it - although it may be replayed on C-Span):

'If I were a picture editor, I would have only published one of the cartoons: the one where Mohammed says that there are no more virgins left, as it is the only one with a punchline. That said, the minute there was violence, the cartoons were no longer the story - the violence became the story. Once there was violence, we had an obligation to demonstrate that we are not fearful. The only way to do that was to repeat the act, which meant republishing the cartoons. What under other circumstances would have been rude became required.'

...

'What we need are muslim leaders who will stand up and say that it is okay for Islam to be lampooned, that in a free society everyone agrees to take their lumps and that muslims will take theirs. Instead, what we have are leaders saying that Islam should be exempted from ridicule. In a free society there can be no no-go areas; without freedom of expression there are no other freedoms.'

...

'The Suffi mystical tradition in Kashmir and the Shia minature portrait tradition in Iran are the two greatest traditions in Islamic art, both of which have represented the prophet. To say that there is a prohibition on representing the prophet is a lie - and many in the West unthinkingly accepted it as the truth.'

...

'One of the most controversial of the Danish cartoons, the one where 'Mohammed' has a bomb in his hat is not even a representation of Mohammed. The face of that cartoon is that of the most radical muslim cleric in Denmark - the one that toured the Middle-East displaying the cartoons. Further, in Denmark there is a saying 'may an apple fall into your hat' which means good luck; 'may a bomb fall into your hat' is fairly self-explanatory in this context, a context that would have been immediately evident to people in Denmark. If we had been able to have an honest discussion about the cartoons, facts such as these would have come out - the violence precluded that possibility.'

Posted by: MSYB at March 3, 2006 1:56 PM

When I was a lad in school, I was perhaps a bit of a leftie... save the whales and all that, but it was tempered by memories of travels to Peru, when the Socialists took over.

It's easy being a leftie, and supporting leftist ideals. Until the piper comes to collect the bill.

I remember our family ranch at the foothills of the Ande's... nothing but rock and desert all around it, yet it stood out like a piece of emerald amidst all the dry arid landscape. Well watered land, with 500 horse, 50 race horses, employing close to 75 people.

One day the Socialists came and said we had to give half of everything to the locals. They split the property right down the middle, including the house.

What a house, 5000 square foot ranch-style layout. Marble everywhere. It was my families pride and joy. Manicured gardens all around.

I went back 2 years after as a favor to a family member on some business. Our half of the property was still a beautiful emerald green. The other half was rotting, dry desert. The house was a mess on one side, and the animals that had been turned over to the locals were long dead.

Socialism is wonderful in theory, but unfortunately fails in practice. There's never any follow through to support that which is attempted. Whats the point of giving people land if they can't manage it?

We don't go back there anymore, it's just to sad.

Yep, it's easy to piss on things when you 20... it's a lot harder when you get older, and have to work for what you get.

Everytime I pay tax's, I think of that damn ranch, and those bloody communists shouting "We are here to free the people, free their minds, free them from their chains of oppression".

Hmmpf... at least when we had the ranch, they ate, and had a place to sleep. The children went to school, and they had good medical.

All they had left after a couple of years were dry lumps of dirt, and a few thousands of scrap metal, but their were free right? Luckily the Commies got the boot. Never got the other half of the ranch back though.

It's easy to profess a leftist doctrine, and piss on everything that smacks of institutionalism. Right up until you need something done.

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 3, 2006 2:01 PM

The Sheaf seems to have the same policy as does the CBC, i.e. show tolerance only toward those religious faiths that might hurt you if offended.

Posted by: Phil L at March 3, 2006 2:05 PM

wow.

Very instructive story.

I guess that's why they call socialism the "anti-everything-that-works" movement.

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 2:06 PM

Doug: Your: Just curious, how many of you are university grads that would have considered themselves liberal, until after a few years of maturity when you became conservative?

Good point. As Margaret Thatcher put it, "The facts of life are conservative".

Posted by: me no dhimmi at March 3, 2006 2:09 PM

Michael S, do local businesses that advertise in this paper know what this student paper prints?

Would be good to update them too;)

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 3, 2006 2:16 PM

Nothing that free market tuition fees wouldn't solve, maybe?

Posted by: me no dhimmi at March 3, 2006 2:22 PM

[begin sarcasm]

Please, you don't think a paper that views capitalists as pig would willingly and knowingly take money from businesses (who exist to *gasp* make profit)do you?

That would be completely hypocritical and i would be SHOCKED if such a fine paper would do such a thing!

[end sarcasm]

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 2:25 PM


You want to get people back down to earth? You want people to take civics more seriously? You want people to stop with their moral relativism?

Bring back mandatory military service. 2 years of military service for everyone after highschool will eliminate PC/Leftist idiocy forever.

People lost their perspective when they lost their fear of being the one to take the bullet. Modern westerners have not seen hardship or death. They do not have an appreciation for the threats that they are kept safe from so they should be forced to be the one to do the safekeeping for a while.

Posted by: Warwick at March 3, 2006 2:30 PM

This cartoon is under Page A16 if you download the pdf. I'm going to write these intellects and see if they publish it...

Posted by: tomax at March 3, 2006 2:42 PM

Soup,
I'm not a wild man from Winnipeg, just a fool from Saskatoon. (Seen on the front of a sandwich board: "I'm a fool for Christ"; on the back: "Whose fool are you?"

Posted by: pastorwally at March 3, 2006 2:45 PM

RE: Capitalist Piglet - So let me see, the Sheik, er, the Sheaf says it's ok not to publish the Muslim cartoons out of "respect"

...but publish one towards Christianity...

Uh huh...glad to see UofS students are smart enough to figure out which respect is best, don't want any beheading or building burning right?

Posted by: tomax at March 3, 2006 2:49 PM

Michael S. I'm a U. of S. grad of the '50's. I will certainly write a letter to the editor and to president Mackinnon. Why is it that only the idiots get to decide what is printable? I'm all for contacting the advertisers. There's nothing like losing funding to smarten them up, whereas demonstrations will just reinforce their claim to media fame.

Posted by: Kathleen at March 3, 2006 2:55 PM

That cartoon is most defnitely offensive, it certainly insults the dignity of Christians. I am offended. Thanks for posting it, though. It was necessary.

By the way, "Life of Brian" was was hilarious. Poking fun at the life of Christ and the interpretational errors of Christians isn't always offensive, if you have even a slight funny bone.

Posted by: Feisty at March 3, 2006 2:56 PM

"Bring back mandatory military service. 2 years of military service for everyone after highschool will eliminate PC/Leftist idiocy forever."

While I'm sure that it would do them some good (I know that my time in the infantry certainly did)

I wonder:

Who would want to count on one of these writers to watch their back in, say, Afghanistan?

Not me.

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 3:03 PM

Warrwick .. I couldn't agree more ...

I have thought that very thought ofen.

I live in the USA in the 60s and 70s and many male persons I met had done their two years and they were no mommy's boys. They learned a bit about responsibility and had developed some good personal skills.

I was rock musician in Cleveland Ohio for many years and I saw lots of young men go in and come out. They went in as kids and came back as men.

They had an air of confidence that can only come from a good dose of reality and being away from the 'nurturing' environment for a couple of years.

What a great idea. Glad you said it.

It will not happen here thought. Too bad.

Duke

Posted by: Duke at March 3, 2006 3:04 PM

Double standard hypocrisy, plain and simple. In our muddled middle society, if anyone screams, burns things, stops speakers, well, then they obviously feel strongly and therefore must be right. That is why there is open season on Christianity, Jesus Christ, etal. By and large, Christians don't go on rampages, kill, behead people or blow things up. In our non-logical society, that means they don't fell strongly about these issues, and are, therefore, wrong. One of these days we will figure our the anti-modernists (Islamists, extreme environmentalists, anti-globalists, etc - you know, the ones who think George Bush is the world's worst terrorist) hate our society, but have no problem cashing the cheques. That is hypocrisy, and if we don't recognize these hateful, bigoted people for what they are, they will be the ruin of us

Posted by: Phil at March 3, 2006 3:09 PM

also wrote to the president, a little more serious toned letter, so hopefully will get an apology. Will print here if you want Kate.

cheers
tom

-------------
As per our phone conversation, I am appalled at the udder disregard "in the name of free speech" done towards Christianity in a recent publication of the students newspaper, the Sheaf.

I am of course referring to the cartoons on page A16.

Totally tasteless and shameless mockery of a faith - anyone's.

As I understand it, the publication wouldn't publish the Danish cartoons out of "respect for Islam", but it is alright towards Christianity? As well as a hidden anti-semantic jab at the Jewish faith - "it kosher if you don't swallow" is a double insult.

Again, this being from a distinguished higher education facility as the University of Saskatchewan is this what one is to expect as moral standards being taught today?

Sincerely
Tom McLaughlin
403.........

Posted by: tomax at March 3, 2006 3:23 PM

Silly little bunch of adolescent intellectual wannabees trying to be noticed. Oh how shocking. Give me a break. It's always nice to watch them when the real world and reality shocks them.

Posted by: Western Canadian at March 3, 2006 3:33 PM

ha! I meant utter...

Freudian reference slip of flatlanders...

Posted by: tomax at March 3, 2006 3:41 PM

Like Doug, Sheila and some other commentators, I was a leftie in university. I'm only 24, so that was very recently. My professors all taught that "White Male Patriarchal Capitalist Imperialist Hegemony" (re-arrange those words however you like) was source of all the world's problems. Taking a pro-capitalist stance would've meant ridicule and name-calling.

During a social work class discussion of First Nations issues, an Aboriginal classmate brought up the corruption and nepotism on her home reserve, and the problems her mother encountered when going through a divorce. She was told that she sounded like a white male by another classmate, to which the prof said nothing. It was at that point that I started to realize the true nature of the brand of pomo/socialism that's so common on university campuses.

I'm not a Christian, the anti-capitalist nature of the cartoon displeases me, but that is their editorial right. What offends me more is their blatant and unapologetic hypocrisy.

Posted by: Angela at March 3, 2006 4:00 PM

Behold the titanic, brobdingnagian hypocrisy, bigotry, double standards and utter contemptiblity of the left!

At least we Judeo-Christians, despite taking great offence, aren't going around lopping off peoples' heads and whatnot.

See the differences?

Another nail in the coffin of leftism... which will eventually experience its undoing... like East Berlin and the USSR.

Leftism is a dangerous force. Leftists are not only incredibly self-destructive in their attempt to escape the emptiness and despair stemming from a life without values, without goals, without tradition, without intelligence... they align with the most evil forces on earth and against all that is good and which stands against evil.

Leftists are effectively opposed to freedom, democracy and the rule of law, for they live not by any of these gifts given to them by many who paid the ultimate price so they could live with them. Let us turn our backs towards leftists. Make them realize they are outsiders and will be treated as such.

Stomp on leftism! DOWN with leftism!

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at March 3, 2006 4:00 PM

Kate, I wish these university followers of ward churchills and their ilk and the msm would just read 534 and 535 verses of the koran and see if they still have this great respect of islam. Better yet publish those verses in their worthless rags. Thanks Kate

Posted by: bartinsky at March 3, 2006 4:03 PM

guess someone should remind the papers editors what there mandate is.... they certainly were not paying attention to there supossed creed.

The Sheaf - Student Newspaper
The Sheaf is a non-profit, student-run newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan. Its mission is to inform and entertain University of Saskatchewan students by addressing relevant student issues; by encouraging pluralistic thought and discourse; and by enabling students to practice progressive, accountable, and ethical newspaper publishing. The Sheaf shall strive to offer practical support to students interested in learning about newspaper publishing; operate in a democratic, accountable manner, practice honest communication; perform ongoing, informal reviews; and celebrate the efforts of its volunteers.

All undergraduate students pay an annual fee to support the newspaper; however, advertising revenues account for the majority of the Sheaf’s operating budget.

Selected annually from among the full-time undergraduate students, the Sheaf staff and Directors are responsible for publishing a weekly newspaper during the Regular Session.

Students are encouraged to contact the Sheaf’s editors about contributing artwork and writing, and undergraduate students may become part of the Sheaf Publishing Society’s Collective. For further information, Tel: 306-966-8688.

Posted by: spike at March 3, 2006 4:06 PM

"Why publish something like and not the Muslim parodies?" William MacDonell ( # 1 Comment ).

"The Danish cartoons? What cartoons?" The Left is intellectually/morally bankrupt; they know it. The Left is a barren wilderness; a valley of dry bones; a valley of death.
+

What's wrong with this picture?

Some observations from Tim Blair:

The forbidden cartoons of Mohammadness have been published more widely in Muslim countries than in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada combined. In Malaysia alone, three newspapers ran images – compared to just two newspapers in Australia.

Not a single major US daily went near them.
...


Commentary

I think the real reason for the reluctance among Anglospheric publications to print the Danish cartoons was less timidity than the fear of tacitly repudiating the underlying assumption of the President Bush's War on Terror, that the West is not at war with Islam but only with a small group of extremists who have corrupted "the religion of peace". The Danish cartoons threatened to convert this limited war into a more general confrontation between the value systems of the West and Islam. Why, one might ask, should the media, with no love lost for President Bush, care at all about protecting the key assumption of his limited war? The reason I think, is that the Left in their reflexive opposition to President Bush since the invasion of Iraq had not bothered to create a war strategy of their own. The nomination of Senator John Kerry in 2004 was an attempt to offer up the appearance of an alternative rather than a rival strategy. He was a placeholder for a policy that didn't exist. Trapped in the mental world of the 20th century, the Left had not decided how to respond to the challenge of the 21st. In marked contrast to the Cold War, in which 9 successive US administrations pursued the common policy of containment against the Soviet Union, the war after September 11 was characterized by the absence of a strategic consensus. President George Bush had a strategic vision; and the Democrats an endless supply of peanuts which they were prepared to pitch from the gallery.

Once the Danish cartoon crisis threatened to knock the props out from under President Bush's limited war on Islamic renegades and escalate it to a "clash of civilizations" the barrenness of the Lefist intellectual cupboard became obvious even to themselves. There was no recipe to deal with this contingency. A "clash of civilizations" would pull matters from their grasp precisely because they refused to touch it in the first place. They could only continue to pretend Islamism didn't exist; and so they thrust their heads into the sand even further. The Danish cartoons? What cartoons? +
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

Posted by: maz2 at March 3, 2006 4:11 PM

tomax:

"ha! I meant u(dd)er..."

I thought that was a send up on my "Blessed are the cheesemakers" Monty Python reference.

BTW Feisty I slipped in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" as a study in contrast.

Given the Danish are noted cheesemakers; would that be Yarlsberg or Havarti?

Perhaps we should send some Danish cheese to Iranian President who has on his mind the destruction of Israel by means of nuclear Holocaust.

Of course Adminewhackjob wouldn't have gotten anywhere near his diabolical dream were it not for famous Danish physicist Niels Bohr or is that Niels BOAR?

For an electrifying read consider Hans Christian Ørsted noted for discoveries in electromagnetism.
Alternately, Soren Kierkegaard will help with existential angst but be no help in making your way to heaven. Ironically, within the world of philosophy, Søren Kierkegaard has become known as the GODfather of existentialism.

But I have always been in favour of world CHEESE.
So don't be afraid of harsh cheeses when you can just EDAM and GOUDA.

So I commend you to that famous Monty dictum:

"Blessed are the cheesemakers for the kingdom of God is theirs."

Beats the HELL out of the Iranian president's nuclear incineration proposal. On the other hand, if Adminewhackjob gets his wish we can all talk to GOD directly, no translator required.

Albert Einstein noted when grappling with quantum physics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle:

“God does not play dice with the universe.”

Of course God may or may not play dice with the universe; but this does not appear to stop man from attempting to “roll the dice” with mankind. As Hans Bethe, Nobel physics laureate and chief theoretical physicist on the Manhattan project noted if World War 3 is going to use hydrogen bombs the following war would be fought with sticks and stones. Apparently death and destruction doesn’t have much to commend it.

So practice disrimination when selecting fine wine, women and above all cheeses.

Now where did my Dutch wife hide the GOUDA!?!

Blessed are the cheesemakers indeed.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 3, 2006 4:32 PM

I've got a similar story to tell, which involves a letter I wrote to my campus newspaper regarding a similarly outrageous anti-Christian cartoon. I'll post more later.

Posted by: Dante at March 3, 2006 4:50 PM

Y'know, there are three categories of people in society who need to be rigorously and routinely ignored when it comes to serious opinions on just about anything:

Students, actors and models.

Posted by: JJM at March 3, 2006 4:53 PM

It's anti-semitic, since Jesus was Jewish. Let's see someone complain to the human-rights commission.

Oh, and I'm sure Muslims will be pleased to see the prophet Jesus portrayed as a cocksucker. I expect Place Riel to be burning soon.

I went to U of S in the early 90s, and know the sheaf well; we used to call it The Shit. C'mon Sheaf, have some guts and at least be *consistent*.

Posted by: Norman Lorrain at March 3, 2006 4:59 PM

Well at least it's funnier than the Danish cartoons.

Posted by: Jose at March 3, 2006 5:01 PM

"Well at least it's funnier than the Danish cartoons." -- Jose.

Thanks for coming out, Jose.

Posted by: EBD at March 3, 2006 5:04 PM

Trapped in the mental world of the 20th century, the Left had not decided how to respond to the challenge of the 21st.

Heh, while keeping the Biblically illiterate right busy with nonsensical cartoons the left has quietly moved on. It's called the Third Way and you've already been recruited.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 3, 2006 5:07 PM

No Way, Jose, the Mohamad cartoons actually were intelligent; they made sence: they related to events in teh real world: for example, I enjoyed the one where mohammed, flanked by two women in burkas, had his eys blacked-out: the women where enitrely blacked out by the burkas, excoet for their eys, which could see. Or Mohamed telling the long line of singed bombers:"stop! we ran out of virgins!" funny stuff.
The response from many of teh fanatics being targetted was predictably was midieval.
What is wrong with you, Jose?

Posted by: Bushman at March 3, 2006 5:10 PM

i agree that most students, especially those who have never earned a living or paid taxes, naturally len towards utopian lefty ideals. many of them switch to the right when they enter the real world.

a large part of the problem is the culture of those teaching them. tenured professors are just professional students enjoying their entitlements.

osgoode hall law school was insanely far left leaning. my first year property law prof showed up the first day in a t-shirt that was emblazoned with "property is theft".

Posted by: allen at March 3, 2006 5:13 PM

"Well at least it's funnier than the Danish cartoons."

Not at all.
The Danish cartoons weren't especially clever, but at least they were relevant.

what point, exactly, does this cartoon make about a real contemporary issue?

Provocation without relevance is not satire.

Posted by: GM at March 3, 2006 5:17 PM

Kate I've got a similar case about an anti-Christian cartoon you might want to see here. I've got the whole story posted to my blog. Here's the address of the post:

http://uncommontruths.blogspot.com/2006/03/another-campus-newspaper-features-anti.html

Posted by: Dante at March 3, 2006 5:18 PM

Allen -

Sounds like that prof would fit in nicely if he/she were filling a spot on the bench of the SCOC.

Posted by: Kevin at March 3, 2006 5:43 PM

The graphics stink. It has the artist integrity of a crayoned napkin. The message and the context are a potpourri of hackneyed shallow leftist bumpersticker memes.

I guess if you are 18, you've scored in the teeny-bop shock jock world. (This kid would do better majoring in denistry.)

I'll take the metaphor, art and satire of bomb turbined Mohammed any day. Well developed, timely and on target.

Posted by: penny at March 3, 2006 5:49 PM

kevin,

they also offered a course called 'corporation as criminal'.

however, i always enjoy getting my annual call for alumni donations and explaining to them that it would be hypocritical of me to expect that they would accept money from a capitalist. as such, i would not insult them by offering them any of my ill-gotten gains. although, the callers never seem to get it.

Posted by: allen at March 3, 2006 5:53 PM

Comments above about LW students turning into RWers reminds me of an old saying: "a young person that is not LW has no heart, and old person that is not RW has no brain".

Posted by: Bushman at March 3, 2006 5:55 PM

good quote bushman.

Posted by: allen at March 3, 2006 6:00 PM

I contribute to the U of S every year;

I just told them (via e-mail)that I would be taing a break: then I decided to shift my suport to STM, the Catholic college.

Posted by: Bushman at March 3, 2006 6:07 PM

btw, i never commented on the cartoon directly. i am assuming that the capitalist piglet is a regular feature in this rag. the name of the cartoon is fair warning, i guess. socialists and far lefty's are crude and intellectually dishonest.

oh, the irony. they don't understand that they have the right to do this only because of the funding provided by those that they shamefully and disgustingly attack.

it's gratuitous vile garbage with no punchline. it's not funny or interesting. i'm not a christian, but it makes me sick. do they have the right to print it? yes.

i have the right as well to call them scumbags and spineless twits for printing this at the same time they declare they will not print the much more innocuous danish cartoons. the sheaf is morally bankrupt, shallow and insignificant.

you people are asswipes, sorry kate, can i say that?

Posted by: allen at March 3, 2006 6:23 PM

"Well at least it's funnier than the Danish cartoons."

Posted by Jose at March 3, 2006 05:01 PM

Thanks for showing your true colours.

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at March 3, 2006 6:51 PM

Allen-
Thanks for your further comments, great response to their funding requests.

Of course they wouldn't get it, they probably believe that you'd be relieved to offer up as "atonement" for your capitalist "sins"!

These morons have tenure at what is supposedly Canada's finest law school?!! Mind-boggling!
No wonder so many lawyers who enter politics seem to have such screwed-up lines of reasoning. You must be made of better stuff to escape with your good sense intact.

Posted by: Kevin at March 3, 2006 7:02 PM

kevin, most lawyers are businesspeople, they shed the left thing after practicing. the odd public exception is someone like clayton ruby. he has a lot of family money to cushion everything else. he has the room to move. he has chosen to act for the left.

the other exception is feminists doing family law. they're agenda is to destroy dads. men are evil.


the vast majority of us are people that with whom you would enjoy having a drink. especially me, and if you're buying, i'm in.

Posted by: allen at March 3, 2006 7:18 PM

sorry for my gram errors. please replace.


the majority are those with which you would enjoy

Posted by: allen at March 3, 2006 7:25 PM


Send an e-mail to the editor, they won't print it, but they will read it.
Laugh at them and their pathetic logic.
Ask them about their hypocrisy.
Ask them if they know that all the issues that are near and dear to them aren't shared by the religion they chose to respect.
Mock them.
Be condescending.
Treat them like the intellectually weak children of the nanny state.
Show them no respect because they have earned none.
Ask them when they will be ready to help Canada join the ranks of the grown up countries.

The Sheaf: editor@thesheaf.com

Posted by: Virgil at March 3, 2006 7:30 PM

Allen-
Don't get me wrong, it was "most lawyers entering politics", not "most lawyers". Most lawyers I've met I like.

There are some empty skulls on some though, like that Bay Street lawyer who claimed that PMSH had said something incredibly sexist when he remarked that Stronach never seemed to be very "complex". I don't know she found that sexist, the remark was about BS, I don't believe he made any reference to women. The lawyer seems to have an inferiority complex is she can automatically assume that he applied that statement to women in general. Any intelligent male knows they're a hell of a lot brighter than our gender! :-)

Hell yah, I'd buy you a drink; you survived Osgoode with your faculties intact! That makes you akin to a Veteran in my opinion! A nice single malt perhaps?

Posted by: Kevin at March 3, 2006 7:31 PM

kevin, bad lawyers often wrongly depict their clients. but, the garbage comes out in cross examination, hopefully in discovery before you get to trial.

sounds like you're involvoved in litigation, good luck to you.

Posted by: allen at March 3, 2006 7:55 PM

JJM "Y'know, there are three categories of people in society who need to be rigorously and routinely ignored when it comes to serious opinions on just about anything - Students, actors and models"


*whew* I missed that bullet...

;-)

Posted by: tomax at March 3, 2006 8:10 PM

Oh, come on ... give them a break. All they've done is is put in a resume to CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, G&M, etc., etc, etc, ...

Push hard - is what I say them ... and enjoy driving a cab.

Posted by: ural at March 3, 2006 8:48 PM

Does "The Red Eye" have an appropriate response to "The Sheaf"'s brokeback Christ toon? I'd like to see what they do in the next issue! There's at least one identifiable group at the U.of S. that's not afraid to stand against idealogical bullying.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 3, 2006 8:50 PM

They've shown what they think of Christians supporting the Jews and the state of Israel. (And I wouldn't explain it any further than that because I'm a lady.)
But, Jeshua is much bigger than their tiny underdeveloped minds. They've grieved him, but they'll see him one day - and it could be sooner than they realize. Amen.

Posted by: gellen at March 3, 2006 8:54 PM

UNC-Chapel Hill Attack Motive: Islamic Rage

Last week we had a report on University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student newspaper The Daily Tar Heel, which ran an original cartoon of Mohammed that enraged Muslim groups: lgf: Daily Tar Heel Now Targeted for Cartoon Jihad.

Now it appears that a Muslim psychology graduate from UNC-Chapel Hill may have committed the first act of terrorism inside the US connected to the cartoons: New Details about UNC-CH Attack. (Hat tip: Confederate Yankee.)

(03/03/06 — CHAPEL HILL) - The driver of an SUV that plowed into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill on Friday told police it was retribution for the treatment of Muslims around the world, according to ABC News.

It happened around noon Friday in front of Lenoir Hall on the campus, in a common area known as the Pit. Paramedics took six people to UNC Hospitals. Five had been released by Friday evening and the sixth was not expected to be admitted. Officials say none of the people were seriously injured. Three refused treatment at the scene.

Chapel Hill police say they arrested the suspect, Mohammed Reva Taheriazar, 23, of Chapel Hill, shortly after the incident. Several witnesses were able to give police the rented Jeep Cherokee’s license plate number.

Police said they would charge Taheriazar, a psychology major who graduated from UNC last semester, with several counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.

Link to terrorism?

Sources say Taheriazar told police he was seeking retribution for the treatment of Muslims around the world, according to ABC News justice correspondent Pierre Thomas. Taheriazar apparently told police he tried to rent the biggest SUV he could find to use in the attack. + more
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3958312
via LGF

Posted by: maz2 at March 3, 2006 9:38 PM

Oh my.. I think the real hypocracy are from some of the poster. Kate's been pretty clear about her support for publishing comics which offend others, but all of a sudden when it comes to offending Christianity, its a big deal. Yes this comic is just stupid, but if you want to make a point about freedom of speech then it seems more prudent to attack the religion of your neighbours rather than that going after muslims.

How dare they offend Christians and not muslims? Why should they offend either. I think the editor is probably pointing out the double standard we have in our society.

The only paper I have anyrespect for who published the Mophammed papers is the guys down in Jordan. They at least put their own personal safety at risk for reprinting them.

Posted by: Dan at March 3, 2006 9:47 PM

Dan,

Maybe in a few years you'll get a "clue". I hope on your quest you and yours make it.

Posted by: ural at March 3, 2006 10:09 PM

I have no problem with the rights of Sheaf to print or not to print but get some help in your graphics.

Posted by: ronrob at March 3, 2006 10:10 PM

Dan cannot yet differentiate between murderers and people that are merely religious. He suffers from moral relativism.
He cannot differentiate between that which has some redeeming value and that which does not.
Dan does not understand that it takes courage to bring enlightenment to the dark ages, but no courage at all to bring the dark ages that what is enlightened.
Have you even seen all the cartoons, Dan?

Posted by: Bushman at March 3, 2006 10:29 PM

i think that the first schism in the Christian church, between Rome and Byzatnium (Catholic and Orthodox) was over whether it was proper to make images of God. I may be wrong, but I know that there was an ancient schism in the church over this issue.
There were many centuries when Christians would kill over the slightest insult to their faith: those days (when this was mainstream) are over. Those days are not over for radical Islam. Repression of women and gays and "unbelievers" etc... is rampant. There is no freedom of speach etc...
The real hypocrisy is in ignoring these issues. The real hypocrasy is pretending that it's all the same. The real hyhpocrasy is showing "repect" for muslim sensibilities, to the point of being ridiculous, yet showing none for Christians or Jews. The real hypocrasy is in pretending this attack on Christians, on Jews, on capitalism, ont he Western world, is somehow brave or clever or has some redeeming value. This is nothing but a lie that this cartoon demeans all that see it. It is hateful. It is somehting you would expect to see in a U. bathroom stall, at best.
Murderers are not victims. The Danish cartoons lampoon suicide bombers, and mocks women repressers. They respect Mohammed. This cartoon respects nothing, debases evrything.

Posted by: Bushman at March 3, 2006 10:49 PM

Dan, "I think the editor is probably pointing out the double standard we have in our society."

Sorry I think your giving the editor of Sheaf to much credit. Typical of most student papers, they believe that gutless shock value is progressive/cutting edge.

Being an athiest I don't care what religion they insult.
What does bother me is blatant hypocracy.

Posted by: Chris in Manitoba at March 3, 2006 10:54 PM

Thanks for the traffic kate, but i noticed that the link seems to be down. If anyone would like to see the cartoon in question, they can stop on over to:

http://uncommontruths.blogspot.com/2006/03/another-campus-newspaper-features-anti.html

--Dante

Posted by: Dante at March 3, 2006 10:59 PM

to the editors of "the Sheaf"

To Muslims Jesus is a prophet. Thus you have insulted Muslims with your cartoon! Please apologise immediately.

By the way to avoid offending Muslims you must separate the sexes at your paper, and all women must be completely covered from head to toe. Failure to do so is an isult to Islam!

Posted by: observer at March 3, 2006 11:00 PM

As an alumnus of the U of S I regularily get a request for a donation.

I can harldy wait until the next request.

Can you say "piss off"

Horny Toad

Posted by: Horny Toad at March 3, 2006 11:04 PM

Dan, Kate has a link to the former editor of 'The Sheath's' resignation letter...worth reading in its entirety.

He resigned because the Muhammed cartoons were *NOT* published in their paper.

Christianity has been fair game to mock; he expected Islam to get used to the idea of being mocked as well.

But, in the end, his higher-ups succumbed to the fear of backlash and tensions with the admin of the university....

Another double standard, but not owned by those who dislike having Christianity alone trashed, otherwise the university and paper bosses would have put their foot down earlier.

Mocking Christianity will nicely take up the slack of leaving Muhammed alone I suppose, with what we have in this cartoon.

I go back to asking if the businesses, who support the paper, know what attention their advertising has bought them?

Christians are used to this kind of smear.

They can though, make a point by refusing to partake in any product associated with this paper.
~~~~~
In this paper's former editor's words:

http://waywardreporter.blogspot.com/2006/02/we-now-return-to-regularly-scheduled.html#links

"...The chill effect is alive and well even here in Saskatoon. We have decided to not publish The Cartoons because of fear of offending people and the backlash that might be thrust upon the Sheaf. The point was made that we have taken shots at jesus and christianity many times in the Sheaf with the justification that we live in secular society and satarization, indeed even mocking, of religion is accepted in Canada. Unless we’re dealing with Islam--then it’s blasphemous to certain people and we can’t offend them."


Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 3, 2006 11:10 PM

Sorry about the link - it's fixed now, I think.

Posted by: Kate at March 3, 2006 11:20 PM

Totally revolting to anyone with any class, but especially Christians. I can see in the years to come a mjor clash between Islam and Christianity,

kind of ironic since U of S blows anyway. :)

Thanks Kate forkeeping us up to date.

Burke
Calgary

Posted by: Alberta Proud at March 4, 2006 12:11 AM

A solution:
The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention of Thomas Friedman states that "No two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's."

Friedman has revised this as the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention because shortly after his McDonald's theory was published, the NATO forces bombed Serbia.

Posted by: steve in bc at March 4, 2006 12:32 AM

Dan:
"How dare they offend Christians and not muslims?"

Good question, Dan. Care to ask that one to MSM? Don't expect any more than a strong putrid wind back as an answer. If you really want the answer, look at some of Theo Van Gogh's crime scene pics. Islam's sword bled Theo like a slaughtered pig for daring to offend.

Christians are a far more convenient target since they have little basic things like the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule that can't be interpreted as "liberally" as the Q'uran's intolerant text. Heck, an Iranian Imam has even justified using nukes to accomplish holy jihad!!!

If, Danny boy, you believe that christians have received fair and equal treatment of their beliefs over the years in "The Sheaf" compared to Islam then you've got "BLIND BIGOT" tatooed on your forehead and little grey matter behind it.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 4, 2006 12:49 AM

Peter MacKinnon's attempt at damage control:
(in an email sent to all members of the University of Saskatchewan community)

"I feel I must publicly communicate with our campus community on what I have just seen in the student newspaper.

In the February 23 edition of the Sheaf, the editors explained that they would not publish the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. It is surprising that they did not exercise similar restraint in their decision to publish 'Capitalist Piglet' in the March 2 issue of the paper. This is a cartoon that is certain to cause distress to members of our community. It has divisive shock value only and does nothing to advance the understanding or debate for which universities should be distinguished.

The Sheaf should apologize to us all.

Peter MacKinnon
President "

Posted by: Mark at March 4, 2006 1:57 AM

Thank you Kate for helping to bring this to our attention

Thank you Mr. MacKinnon for a good first step

Editors and staff at the Sheaf...it is in your court now.

Posted by: Not Surprised at March 4, 2006 2:08 AM

Well I suppose if Christians adopted some extremist methodology we would have the offending cartoonist flogged with a cat of nine tails suitably ripping their flesh to look like the butcher block after a days work.

Next we would load him up with some suitable softwood timber, march him through the town square for bouts of derision and manadatory throwing of rotten kitchen droppings, asorted pebbles and stones.

The cartoonists hands will get special treatment; namely some rather oversize spikes driven mercilessly with bone crushing efficiency through the wrist. This should help the cartoonist in their freedom of expression.

For attempting to kick the Christians asses your feet also get a bone crushing spike through them to improve your freedom of walking.

We then hoist your dumb ass on a piece of timber; and gaze on you as you have searing pain from your feet rises to your cerebral cortex, due to the fact that if you don't push up every now and then you won't be able to breath. This should improve the cartoonists ability of freedom of thought, belief opinion and expression.

And for mercy we will have your legs broken at the end, like the two thieves, to make sure you are sent off to the hereafter suitably chastened by the experience.

If this is not vivid enough the cartoonist can have a free pass to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ."

Alternately, lets impose some ancient English common law and do a William Wallace on him a la "Braveheart". How about hung, drawn, quartered and his head hoisted on petard in front of the town gate?

We would like to thank the cartoonists for this delightful exercise in verbal image butchery.

Perhaps, the cartoonist should get on his knees and thank God he is free to be an asshole. Further, he should keep praying, that I don't lose my faith, in which case I will become the the meanest son of a bitch this side of the valley of death.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker on a plumbers van which nearly caused me to drive off the road in laughter:

"Jesus is coming and boy is HE pissed off."

Oh hang it all, its Lent and we're supposed to repent and forgive others as they have trespassed against us.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 4, 2006 2:08 AM

Peter McKinnon:
"The Sheaf should apologize to us all."

Right Peter..."The Sheaf" should apologize to the Buddists, Hindu's, Scientologists, Atheists, Wickens, etc. because everyone was supposed to be offended enough to deserve one. Good PC call Peter.

How about re-writing what I presume is your first draft with "the most heartfelt sincere apology should be given to Christians first". You could even add a statement or two on the direction where "The Sheaf" should go to improve journalistic quality and the responsibility the current publishing staff should take (like falling on their own swords).

Peter...for the University's sake I really hope it was your first draft posted with these comments. If that was your proper response to the Brokeback Christ Toon, it misses the point. Fix the paper.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 4, 2006 2:35 AM

Jose,
"Well at least it's funnier than the Danish cartoons."

??????????????????????????????????????????

Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 4, 2006 2:43 AM

Hardly surprising considering that Christianity and anything remotely "white male" have been fair game on campus for about twenty years. Most campuses are hotbeds of communist-sympathizing, ultra-politically correct, anti-capitalist and anti-American extremism. And I'm not just talking about the professors.

Posted by: Howard Roark at March 4, 2006 10:21 AM

There've been a couple of comments that this cartoon will probably have offended Muslims, who regard Jesus as a prophet. Some time ago when the stage play Corpus Christi, the story of a gay Jesus and his gay disciples, was running in London, the Shari'ah Court of the UK issued a death fatwa against the playwright Terrence McNally:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/493436.stm

In contrast, here's a reaction to Corpus Christi by a Christian reviewer (note that it includes no threats of physical violence):
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9812/opinion/nuechterlein.html

Posted by: Phil L at March 4, 2006 10:38 AM

Clash of Whats? (Exposing Islam)
RealClearPolitics.com ^ | 3/4/2006 | David Warren

Posted on 03/04/2006 6:25:31 AM PST by Dark Skies

Sometimes I am brought up short by the clarity and courage with which someone else -- with more to lose than I have -- states a truth. I am a Catholic Christian, who often dismisses “secular humanists”. But I’m in awe of people like Canada’s Irshad Manji, the “Muslim refusenik”, who had the courage in her book The Trouble with Islam to directly confront the horrors done in Allah’s name -- in, as she put it, “Pick a country, any Muslim country.”

Another is Wafa Sultan, an Arab woman practising psychology, now living in the States. A self-professed “disbeliever in the supernatural”, she has posted essays on the Internet in Arabic, including research into the fate of women under various Islamic regimes. She has willingly and ably confronted Muslim fanatics on Arab TV, most recently on Feb. 21st, when she debated Dr Ibrahim Al-Khouli on Al-Jazeera. A transcript and video clips with English subtitles were made available this week by the Middle East Media Research Institute (“Memri”) -- an indispensable institution, based in Israel, that distributes hard information and accurate translations of documents from the Arab world. (It is useless to condemn it as “Zionist” -- everything Memri publishes is sourced and checkable.)

With great bravery, Dr Sultan confronts the “tu quoque” (“you too”) arguments of the apologists for Islamic terror -- refusing to let them change the subject from what they have done, said, and approved, to misty rhetoric against Zionists, Yankees, Imperialists, Crusaders. Boldly on Al-Jazeera, last week, she said what our Western politicians, media flaks, and academic celebrities won’t say, from cowardice in its many forms. Excerpt:

“The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. ... It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.”

The sparkling TV host interrupts to ask if Dr Sultan insinuates the clash is, “between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims”. Dr Sultan replies, “Yes, that is what I mean.” +
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1589887/posts

Posted by: maz2 at March 4, 2006 10:46 AM

Poking a little fun at various gods here and there is OK.

The Sheaf failed in presenting a cartoon that is both not funny and a graphic disgrace.

Waste of time when it has no humour. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 4, 2006 10:56 AM

This cartoon is a particularly egragious example of what Plato predicted about democracies 2400 years ago:

(See Republic 562b - 563e)
-----------
(Socrates:) "And does greediness for what democracy defines as good also dissolve it?"
(Adeimantus:) "What do you say it defines that good to be?"
(S:) "Freedom," I said. "For surely in a city under a democracy you would that this is the finest thing it has, and that for this reason it is the only regime worth living in for anyone who is by nature free."
(A:) "Yes indeed," he said, "that's an often repeated phrase."
"Then," I said, "as I was going to say just now, does the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of the rest change this regime and prepare a need for tyranny? [Islam?]"
"How?" he said.
"I suppose that when a democratic city, once it's thirsted for freedom, gets bad winebearers as its leaders and gets more drunk than it should on this unmixed draught, then, unless the rulers are very gentle and provide a great deal of freedom [Liberals?], it punishes them, charging them with being polluted and oligarchs [capitalist pigs]."
"Yes," he said, "that's what they do."
"And it spatters with mud those who are obedient [esp. hardworking Christians], alleging that they are willing slave of the rulers and nothings," I said, "while it praises and honors - both in private and in public - the rulers who are like the ruled and the ruled who are like the rulers [communists]. Isn't it necessary in such a city that freedom spread to everything?"
"How could it be otherwise?"
"And, my friend," I said, "for it to filter down to the private houses and end up by anarchy's being planted inthe very beasts?"
"How do we mean that?" he said.
"That a father," I said, "habituates himself to be like his child and fear his sons, and a son habituates himself to be like his father and to have no shame before or fear of his parents - that's so he may be free; and metic is on an equal level with townsman and townsman with metic, and similarly with the foreigner [including the terrorist?].
"Yes," he said, "that's what happens."
"These and other small things of the following kind come to pass," I said, "As the teacher [professor] in such a situation is frightened of the pupils and fawns on them, so the students make light of their teachers, as well as of their attendants. And, generally, the young copy their elders and compete with them in speeches and deeds while the old come down to the level of the young; imitating the young, they are overflowing with facility and charm, and that's so they won't seem to be unpleasant and despotic."
...
"Then summing up all of these things together," I said, "do you notice how tender they make the citizens' soul, so that if someone proposes anything that smacks in the way of slavery, they are irrated and can't stand it? And they end up, as you well know, by paying no attention to the laws, written or unwritten, in order that they may avoid having any master at all."
"Of course, I know it," he said.
"Well, then, my friend, " I said, "this is the beginning, so fair and heady, from which tyranny in my opinion naturally grows."
----------

I would certainly encourage all to read the entire Republic to understand themselves and our age better, but failing that, books 8 and 9 are well worth the read on their own.

Posted by: Michael at March 4, 2006 11:02 AM

When I saw the "cartoon" I realized I was looking at child pornography. It is a piglet... a baby pig.

Posted by: truthsayer at March 4, 2006 11:09 AM

Certainly no Biblically literate Christian would republish such crap.

It's akin to being a hypocrite in the hopes of stamping out hypocrisy.

Romans 3:8, "And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say) Let us do evil, that good may come?..."

Posted by: ol hoss at March 4, 2006 11:23 AM

Something noteworthy for folks who donate, with good intention, to organizations such as the 'Organic Center of Canada'- cushioned already, I might add, by the federal and many provincial government departments.

The Organic Center then donate their funds to subsidize 'The Sheath'.

They even have a PayPal donation button for our convenience;)

Do they announce they will be forwarding your generous donation for yet another use, like subsidizing 'The Sheath' and this "Capitalist Piglet" cartoon?

Not where I could easily find it.

Now, is that Kosher, too?

http://www.oacc.info/FriendsAndPartners/of_donations.html

"Your $25 gift will be put to work funding much-needed research and education.You will be provided with a tax receipt."

~~~~
I hope the other contributing businesses will get a heads up today about how their money is being used.


Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 4, 2006 11:43 AM

Sorry, Ol Hoss, but the prosecutor must present the evidence. If you want to see no evil, go be a hermit in the desert (or in the bush!).

Posted by: Bushman at March 4, 2006 11:51 AM

even though this punk really needs some speed bumps on his confused nihilist skull, is it really fair to beat up on an intellect that sill uses 60s slamg like "grove'?

Pathetic more than anything....The Wheatfield people's revolutionaries" striking a blow for ...uh what exactly is it we hate..oh ya anything our parents like....these kids should have their own comedy show ...slot it next to the trailer park boys...same audience who enjoy watching losers.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 4, 2006 11:54 AM

Sorry, Ol Hoss, but the prosecutor must present the evidence.

The evidence is in the original, not a duplication.

Would one duplicate hypocrisy to prove hypocrisy in others?

Posted by: ol hoss at March 4, 2006 12:01 PM

To eliminate any equivilancy arguements - that this is no different than the Cartoons printed first by the Danish- I propose the following. Run this EXACT cartoon again with the exception that we use the prophet Mohammed giving the blow job. Then we would have a terrific example of true equivilancy, and we could compare the responses of both Christians and Islamists after being exsposed to the same data.

Posted by: ward at March 4, 2006 12:04 PM

The Taliban [Students sect] and Jihad in general use divisive maneuvers from time to time, [ now it is the cartoon], in order to force persons to decide to step aside or commit to Jihad with new and stronger resolve.

It's called, *Breathing new life into the cause*.

The supply of cartoons at Muhammad*s expense feeds the current cause.

Their whole game is mind control, similar to Dr. Moon, Hare Krishna, and cult leaders like those of Waco and Jonestown.

Children have been programmed by rote and now as teenagers they are given AK47s to do the bidding of Emirs and Mullahs.

How many of these rote trained kids have any concept of freedom, much less democracy?

They do know how to use Ak47s and RPGs however.

The most basic of flyers should be available in the streets.

[ Jihad.] Everyone below the leaders are slaves. This is rule by rifle.

[ Democracy.] Everyone shares the wealth with a car and a house and the people are not slaves. Rifles and weapons are not required.

Keep it simple. TG


Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 4, 2006 12:07 PM

I don't think that the Sheaf should get away with printing this garbage: if not for this website, I would not have been aware of it, even though I contribute to the U of S.
BTW, I am redirecting my annual suport to St Thomas Moore College, which is the Catholic College located on the U of S campus. Rather then abandoning the U, I would suggest that others do the same!

Posted by: Bushman at March 4, 2006 12:08 PM

Ward - EXACTLY, but will any paper have the guts to do it?? Side by side even?

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at March 4, 2006 12:40 PM


Worked at the U of Windsor for quite a few years. Read their rag and it was mostly about sex, parties and of course the gays on campus. What I thought at that time, was most profs become profs because they can't make it in the outside world. I became convinced of my theory when a young male nephew with the personality of a dead mackeral graduated with a computer science degree and began his search for a job. Being unsuccessful he returned to school and got his masters. He now is working on his PHD. As I said, he could not make it on the outside so is planning on cloaking himself in the ivory tower where he feels safe. Most of us who have had the priviledge of higher learning leave as leftist but once in the real world we make an abrupt turn right. Those Profs have experienced nothing else.

Posted by: jypsy ontario at March 4, 2006 12:42 PM

Not sure if there are any other U of S students reading this, but I think that it would be fair to ask for our $6.10 back that we pay each year in Sheaf fees. Six dollars and ten cents times approximately 20000 students works out to a lot of cash. Also, $6.10 buys me a couple Tim's to get me through my week. Anyone know who collects that fee?

Posted by: Michael Stuber at March 4, 2006 1:50 PM

Does anyone know who "Marg & Y.PH?" are? Presumably students at U of S. Earth sciences maybe?

Regardless, it's nice to see such unfettered expressions get wider distribution. If more of these sorts of Leftist commentaries would be brought to the public's attention, perhaps more young people will stop taking at face-value the Left's noble sounding sentiments, and begin to better understand just how base the left's underlying instincts are, and how septic the results of their crude and un-self-aware motivations.

Standing on the suffering of others -- the poor, historic victims of racism, aboriginals -- in order to feel big is an inherently sick thing to do, yet the left floats such actions as evidence of moral superiority. Hopefully more people will start to see the dimmed-lids, knowing sneer of the collective Left for what it is. The inane and hateful "Capitalist Piglet" is just one tiny refresher course.

BTW Ward, 12:04 demolishes any equivalency arguments.

Posted by: EBD at March 4, 2006 2:16 PM

I can't wait to hear how the editors of The Sheaf will defend themselves.

How many people bet it will be the good old "Sorry, it just slipped through the cracks" line?

Posted by: Chris in Manitoba at March 4, 2006 3:00 PM

HA HA ... The Sheaf should apologies, but the reaction by deity praising nutballs is priceless. Keep up the good work Sheaf

Posted by: Stewe Art at March 4, 2006 3:16 PM

Ward said: "I propose the following. Run this EXACT cartoon again with the exception that we use the prophet Mohammed giving the blow job. Then we would have a terrific example..."

I like the idea, yeah, but I don't need to see that to know the differences between the two approaches. Everything Islamists have done over the past short period of time has given me all the evidence I need. Printing the cartoons as you suggest is really just piling on.
it really would drive a few people (and not just ISlamists) batty, wouldn't it?
Still ...

Posted by: Axeman at March 4, 2006 3:23 PM

The Sheaf should apologies, but the reaction by deity praising nutballs is priceless. Keep up the good work Sheaf

It certainly doesn't bother me what the ignorant do. It's expected that the ignorant will be ignorant.

What would be surprising is if they weren't.

No doubt there will be some whining when the consequences are felt.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 4, 2006 3:41 PM

HA HA ... The Sheaf should apologies, but the reaction by deity praising nutballs is priceless. Keep up the good work Sheaf

Ignorant men heaped insults upon Jesus, the Son of God, so it is no surprise that ignorant men should do the same to his followers today

When the end comes...and it won't be long now, we shall see who is laughing then.
2Pet 3:3-14

Maranatha
(a deity praising nutball)

Posted by: Maranatha at March 4, 2006 4:01 PM

Michael Stuber:
"Not sure if there are any other U of S students reading this, but I think that it would be fair to ask for our $6.10 back that we pay each year in Sheaf fees. Six dollars and ten cents times approximately 20000 students works out to a lot of cash. Also, $6.10 buys me a couple Tim's to get me through my week. Anyone know who collects that fee?"

I was thinking the exact same thing and would love to find out how to get the sheaf fee back. I was thinking of paying all of my tuition except for $6.10 from now on for the last three years of my studies. I'm not sure how to find out how to specifically not pay the sheaf fee though.

The sheaf is a piece of garbage. I have gone to the U of S for 6 years now and haven't read it since first year. They have crossed the line this time though. Pure trash meant to offend and nothing else.

Posted by: Adam at March 4, 2006 4:12 PM

Stewe Art (aka Ha Ha guy), if you enjoy offending religious people so much, may I suggest that you go to Iran or Saudi Arabia to do so, I guarantee that you'll get a reaction.

Posted by: Bushman at March 4, 2006 4:52 PM

Allen, re: "you people are asswipes, sorry kate, can i say that?"

Uhh, careful Allen. I would refrain from impugning the reputation of the Sheaf editors by associating them with anything useful and puposeful. :))

Posted by: Joe Canuck at March 4, 2006 5:51 PM

Standfast, Prime Minister Harper. Stand with our ally & friend: the USA. The appeasers/pacifists/socialists are baying/howling at the moon. +


Mr. Standfast - PART I CHAPTER ONE
Mr. Standfast. by John Buchan ... You will receive letters and messages some day and the style of our friends is apt to be reminiscent of John Bunyan . ...
www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/adventure/MrStandfast/Chap1.html - 48k - +

Canada almost alone in supporting Guantanamo
Globe and Mail ^ | March 4, 2006 | PAUL KORING

Posted on 03/04/2006 2:48:58 PM PST by proud_yank

Major Western allies push for closing U.S. gulag after damning UN report

PAUL KORING

From Saturday's Globe and Mail


UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says close it. So does Louise Arbour, a former Canadian Supreme Court judge who heads the UN Human Rights Commission. The Bush administration's policy of holding detainees in secret and offshore prisons and shipping them to third countries has "an acutely corrosive effect on the global ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," she said.

In Ottawa, Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Marie-Christine Lilkoff said the government understands the need for Guantanamo. "Canada is sensitive to the need to ensure that persons who are a danger to international peace and security not be provided with the opportunity to resume a direct part in hostilities or re-engage in terrorist activity," she said in a written response to questions.

The government declined to provide a direct answer as to whether it wants the camp closed.

International human-rights organizations and international notables such South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who called the camp a "stain" on U.S. democracy, have said Guantanamo must be closed.

But neither the new Conservative government in Ottawa nor its previous Liberal governments seem troubled by the sprawling detainee camps at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

Not only has there been no Canadian demand for it to close, but Canada's special-forces units in Afghanistan continue to hand terrorism suspects over to U.S. forces who ship at least some of them to Guantanamo.

"Canada's silence on Guantanamo is related to the fact that we are complicit in the whole process" of seizing and holding suspects "in a twilight zone," NDP defence spokesman Bill Blaikie said yesterday. "This is typical of the way both the Liberals and Conservatives have handled the whole issue of Guantanamo," instead of joining with other governments and calling for its closing, he added in an interview from Winnipeg. +
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590100/posts

Posted by: maz2 at March 4, 2006 6:12 PM

New Policy Announcement From the United States Defence Department: March 4 2006

Guantanamo will be closed by April 1 2006

All Terrorist suspects will be enrolled at the University of Saskatchewan.

Enjoy them comrades!

Posted by: meinmachine at March 4, 2006 6:20 PM

thanks maz2, it's been a while since i was proud of our government. if they continue to hold fast.


joe canuck, you're right, they should be using the toronto star for that.

Posted by: allen at March 4, 2006 6:22 PM

"The Sheaf should apologize to us all.

Peter MacKinnon
President
University of Saskatchewan"

Apologize for what, Mr. MacKinnon? Cowardness? Favouring Muslims over Christians? Printing the Jesus cartoon. Not Printing the Muslim Cartoon?

You, Mr. MacKinnon - do nothing with your statement except issue more pablum.

The genie is out of the lamp. We want a full and truthful debate, and your position is to hide the truth.

Nope. Your cowardly "now children" email avoids the real issues entirely

Posted by: Lost Budgie at March 4, 2006 6:32 PM

http://mdwatson.blogspot.com/2006/03/open-letter-regarding-recent-cartoon.html

Has a open letter that I sent to President MacKinnon regarding this. I am not the artist in question, but I am a good friend of his and a fellow cartoonist (I am actually part of the all-star duo, although I did not contribute to this cartoon). I feel that a letter of some defense for the cartoon and the cartoonist is in order.

thank you,
mark watson

Posted by: Mark Watson at March 4, 2006 7:47 PM

mark....
nice spin, you should have no problem getting a job with the MSM of this country. very noble of you to try to defend your friend also. whats his problem ? is unable to defend his own actions ?

Posted by: spike at March 4, 2006 8:04 PM

So what can we read into a cartoon about Jesus, Capitalist Piglet, and oral sex? Well, clearly there is the base, tasteless joke. But
even this portion has a couple of levels of interplay, once we get past the shock factor: first, we have direct reference to the fact that Capitalist Piglet is indeed a pig, despite his radical anthropomorphism, and is apparently thus non-kosher. There is seldom acknowledgment of such a cartoon character's actual species (see
Donald Duck, et al) so this is sort of a wink to the audience about the nature of the medium. Furthermore, there is the mentioning of
the fact that Jesus is jewish, something that bears repeating and is often lost on various hate groups. As an aside, I feel I must take
this joke to task on a somewhat different level -- don't the lessons of Jesus and the apostle Paul (Romans 4-6, I believe) remove the many
of the restrictions within the first covenant and with them the rules of kosher living? So I'm not convinced that the joke entirely makes
sense, but I suppose that is neither here nor there.

Good God.

Still trying to get my mind wrapped around your letter of defense?

Posted by: penny at March 4, 2006 8:15 PM

Mark Watson,

Pleeeease! Do you honestly believe that crap you wrote! You really must spend a little more time in the real world.

People are upset over your little rags hypocracy more than anything else. One week claiming to be sensitive to the feelings of muslims the next week sticking it to Christians for no good reason except that you can.

BTW, I'm athiest & don't care for any religion but have a much more intense dislike of leftist hypocracy than anything else.

Posted by: Chris in Manitoba at March 4, 2006 8:19 PM

Mark...birds of a feather flock together. You're saying you're condoning this crap?

Good Lord, give your head a shake, and I don't mean the wigwag one...

Posted by: tomax at March 4, 2006 8:29 PM

The world will be in a huge war in 12 to 16 months,things will get decided at that time.The middle east is ready to try to attack Israel and all shit will fly

Posted by: kado at March 4, 2006 8:45 PM

Gramsci's Grand Plan

by Fr. James Thornton

Excerpt:

Steps in the Process

The first phase in achieving "cultural hegemony" over a nation is the undermining of all elements of traditional culture. Churches are thus transformed into ideology-driven political clubs, with the stress on "social justice" and egalitarianism, with worship reduced to trivialized entertainment, and with age-old doctrinal and moral teachings "modernized" or diminished to the point of irrelevancy [ala the rantings of our Greek-American "useful idiots" who comprise the leadership of such organizations as OCL and GOAL, etc. ed.]. Genuine education is replaced by "dumbed down" and "politically correct" curricula, and standards are reduced dramatically. The mass media are fashioned into instruments for mass manipulation and for harassing and discrediting traditional institutions and their spokesmen. Morality, decency, and old virtues are ridiculed without respite. Tradition-minded clergymen are portrayed as hypocrites and virtuous men and women as prudish, stuffy, and unenlightened.

Culture is no longer a buttress supporting the integrity of the national heritage and a vehicle for imparting that heritage to future generations, but becomes a means for "destroying ideals and...presenting the young not with heroic examples but with deliberately and aggressively degenerate ones," as theologian Harold O.J. Brown writes. We see this in contemporary American life, in which the great historical symbols of our nation's past, including great presidents, soldiers, explorers, and thinkers are shown to have been unforgivably flawed with "racism" and "sexism" and therefore basically evil. Their place has been taken by pro-Marxist charlatans, pseudo-intellectuals, rock stars, leftist movie celebrities, and the like. At another level, traditional Christian culture is condemned as repressive, "Eurocentric," and "racist" and, thus, unworthy of our continued devotion. In its place, unalloyed primitivism in the guise of "multiculturalism" is held as the new model.

Marriage and family, the very building blocks of our society, are perpetually attacked and subverted. Marriage is portrayed as a plot by men to perpetuate an evil system of domination over women and children. The family is depicted as a dangerous institution epitomized by violence and exploitation. Patriarchally oriented families are, according to the Gramscians, the precursors of fascism, Nazism, and every organized form of racial persecution. +
http://www.grecoreport.com/gramsci's_grand_plan.htm

Posted by: maz2 at March 4, 2006 8:49 PM

kado:

Yep, looks like the Middle East will be "warming up soon".

Check out this story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/05/wiran05.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/05/ixnewstop.html

How we duped the West, by Iran's nuclear negotiator

Looks like they had the centrifuges for yellowcake uranium processing all along after Libya bowed out the Iranians scooped up their equipment.


How we duped the West, by Iran's nuclear negotiator
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 05/03/2006)

The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France and Germany to forge ahead with its secret atomic programme.

In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 until last year, revealed how Teheran played for time and tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear programme was uncovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.


Iran has completed uranium enrichment equipment at Isfahan
He boasted that while talks were taking place in Teheran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellowcake - a key stage in the nuclear fuel process - at its Isfahan plant but at the same time convince European diplomats that nothing was afoot.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them'," he said.

Revelation of Mr Rowhani's remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government, ahead of a meeting tomorrow of the United Nations' atomic watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear operations.



The judgment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the final step before Iran's case is passed to the UN Security Council, where sanctions may be considered.

In his address to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Mr Rowhani appears to have been seeking to rebut criticism from hardliners that he gave too much ground in talks with the European troika. The contents of the speech were published in a regime journal that circulates among the ruling elite.

He told his audience: "When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Teheran we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan."

America and its European allies believe that Iran is clandestinely developing an atomic bomb but Teheran insists it is merely seeking nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Iran's negotiating team engaged in a last-ditch attempt last week to head off Security Council involvement. In January the regime removed IAEA seals on sensitive nuclear equipment and last month it resumed banned uranium enrichment.

Iran is trying to win support from Russia, which opposes any UN sanctions, having unsuccessfully tried to persuade European leaders to give them more time. Against this backdrop, Mr Rowhani's surprisingly candid comments on Iran's record of obfuscation and delay are illuminating.

He described the regime's quandary in September 2003 when the IAEA had demanded a "complete picture" of its nuclear activities. "The dilemma was if we offered a complete picture, the picture itself could lead us to the UN Security Council," he said. "And not providing a complete picture would also be a violation of the resolution and we could have been referred to the Security Council for not implementing the resolution."

Mr Rowhani disclosed that on at least two occasions the IAEA obtained information on secret nuclear-related experiments from academic papers published by scientists involved in the work.

The Iranians' biggest setback came when Libya secretly negotiated with America and Britain to close down its nuclear operations. Mr Rowhani said that Iran had bought much of its nuclear-related equipment from "the same dealer" - a reference to the network of A Q Khan, the rogue Pakistani atomic scientist. From information supplied by Libya, it became clear that Iran had bought P2 advanced centrifuges.

In a separate development, the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has obtained a copy of a confidential parliamentary report making clear that Iranian MPs were also kept in the dark on the nuclear programme, which was funded secretly, outside the normal budgetary process.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, the NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told the Sunday Telegraph: "Rowhani's remarks show that the mullahs wanted to deceive the international community from the onset of negotiations with EU3 - and that the mullahs were fully aware that if they were transparent, the regime's nuclear file would be referred to the UN immediately."

Looks like a few nutballs want to send not a few people to the cemetary via a nuclear explosion or two. The Middle East just got trickier.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 4, 2006 9:11 PM

The world will be in a huge war in 12 to 16 months,things will get decided at that time.The middle east is ready to try to attack Israel and all shit will fly
Posted by kado at March 4, 2006 08:45 PM

yeah right. israel can destroy any neighbour in a heartbeat. she wants peace and will wait. the arab neighbours know that. they will continue a suicide ground war as long as it's acceptable to everyone else.

if push comes to shove, there will be no more camels.

Posted by: allen at March 4, 2006 9:13 PM

Taking one snip of what Mark said:

"So when I saw this character engaged the activities that the last strip depicted, I almost immediately thought of the current
state of the American christian right and their debasement of Jesus' philosophy......the original commands to love one another."

You indicate some amount of animosity to the current American administration and blame the American Christian right for suporting it.

So, instead of making the cartoon about those folks (if you must), or the President (if you will), what is presented is an vulgar depection of the very One whose teachings you claim to respect, Jesus Christ.

And all this happened and you were out of the room....what will you do now with that?

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 4, 2006 10:52 PM

This Mark guy is trying to defend the indefensible. What a bunch of BS. Surely he can't beleive this crap. I give him an F.

Posted by: Bushman at March 4, 2006 11:31 PM

Mark,

Its not the cartoon, its the fact that your paper refused to publish the mohammed cartoons, yet has no problem mocking Jesus and Christianity. Why don't you write an explanation for that inconsistancy on your blog?

Posted by: Fred at March 4, 2006 11:36 PM

Guys: I am not a member of the sheaf board, am not an editor and I wasn't involved in the rejection of the Mohammed cartoon nor the creation/acceptance of this. I'm not even a student anymore. Probably the sheaf should have published the Mohammed cartoons -- certainly if they published the Jesus one. But that is not what my post was about -- it was simply my views of it as a cartoonist and as an old friend of the cartoonist in question. But I can't be sorry for something I didn't do -- I can only hope to work towards something better.

But Fred, you are right, I should probably say something about the inconsistancy.

Posted by: Mark Watson at March 4, 2006 11:53 PM

Has there been any MSM pickup on this story?

Posted by: david maclean at March 5, 2006 12:37 AM

This is a total cave-in to the child within.

Children often do something petulant in order to get a reaction.

There is nothing worthy of humour, satire, wit or insight worthy of a learning institution of Canada.

This in fact suggests turning over the editorial control to more reliable and mature peorons. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 5, 2006 1:14 AM

I must have studied spelling there. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 5, 2006 1:16 AM

Mark Watson:
"But Fred, you are right, I should probably say something about the inconsistancy"

You'll make an acceptable addition to MSM someday...nothing but a gust of hot putrid air. Will you really explain the inconsistency with any degree of honesty? Can you?

Posted by: Martin B. at March 5, 2006 2:07 AM

Mark, in your 15 minutes of fame, can you really say the Piglet cartoon was really appropriate, apt, and tasteful for a university student publication?

If you do, then it just proves you're a product of that cesspool we call leftist liberalism.

Posted by: tomax at March 5, 2006 3:03 AM

My God tells me to” love my enemies” and as such I will not be bombing the Sheaf anytime soon. My belief in civil rights ensures that the cartoonist will have the right to pen documents such as this “cartoon”. Moreover, if the cartoonist wishes to print up thousands of copies of his “art” and distribute these copies to those that want them I will not stop him – I will simply walk on by. This is the tolerance that our society is built upon and part of the thin veneer of civilization we all count on to get along.

Unfortunately the Sheaf has gone one better and not only endorsed this cruel and vindictive representation that is certain to offend at least 1/3 of the population but it has done so using funds provided by that same 1/3. As a graduate of the U of S I am completely familiar with the left wing editorial slant of the Sheaf – (in my day it was all about the Vietnam War and the annual May Day parade and celebrations of the campus Communist Club – students are such “joiners”) but the move to “shock jock” territory is beyond the pale.

Would we be having the same discussion if we substituted Tommy Douglas for Christ and Karl Marx for the Rabbi? I think not. First, the editorial board would have been grossly offended by the image and rejected the piece and if they printed it the provincial government would have burned the offices of the Sheaf themselves!

My point is that only in subsidized, unsupervised media can this kind of merde be produced. When the funding is cut off the roots of this kind of thinking die off and society enforces responsible behavior.

I believe that as one who has benefited from the freedoms and education I received here in SK and at the U of S I have a responsibility to support the institution and I have done so through their alumni association. However, it appears that this responsibility is one way and I will no longer be supporting the U of S until such time as it accepts its responsibility for the $ I send it. In my opinion the current editorial board of the Sheaf has shown that it is incapable of fulfilling its responsibility to its readers, the institution it represents and those that provide the support it requires to continue. They need to be dismissed.

I am but a simple member of the 1/3 (Catholics) that find this offensive and I accept my responsibility for my beliefs, my actions and my lot. Dr. KcKinnon will now have to accept his.

Posted by: pilot at March 5, 2006 6:14 AM

Yikes. The Sheaf lends new meaning to the term double standard.

The response by University of Saskatchewan President Peter MacKinnon to the "Capitalist Piglet" cartoon is weak, lame and minimal -- about what one would expect from the lofty heights of the hierarchy of academia.

Fortunately for the Sheaf, there isn't a large, powerful and active radical wing in Christianity ... unlike another religion we've all come to know.

Posted by: AlienJeff at March 5, 2006 8:01 AM

I'm wondering if Mark Watson can provide the cartoonists name and address?

The cartoon should be brought to the attention of anybody underwriting his education. Including family, friends, the public, banks, government, etc. People should know about the kind of mind they are supporting. One that shouldn't be rewarded with an eduction in an institute of higher learning, but should be assessed in an institute of mental disorder.

Of course if the depiction was of Moe, Muslims would be demanding the removal of his head altogether.

Is the cartoonist brave enough in his freedom to attempt that? No, leftists are yellow to the core - and a wretched leech on the back of society that protects their freedom.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at March 5, 2006 9:54 AM

Well I can assure the Sheaf that there WILL be a petition to call for withdrawal of University funding from them. It is absurd that the U of S incorporates a yearly $ 6.10 /student which adds up to a WHOPPING $120 000 a year. This kind of money would have a better place than the pocket of some really really good friends of extreme islam.

What would 120K be enough for a year?

-the University could buy 150 new computers each year. By the way much later and more sophisiticated models than the current ones. OR
-build a University owned coffeshop and give away approx. 150 000 free coffes to the students.
-a yearly free concert by a very well-known Canadian /a yearly concert priced at $10 by a well known international star OR
-give away 2000 monthly bus passes for those in financial need.

Take your pick, but everything in the world would worth more to subsidize than a magazine with Jesus giving a blowjob and a magazine that is chickenshit to publish the newsworthy Muslim cartoons. By the way if this Jesus cartoon was published in whatever country and turned the Christian world into a raging bull burning down embassies and killing people, damn right I would expect the Sheaf to publish them...
THe reality is that if Christians were like Muslims, the Sheaf would have a nice little explanation why they do not reprint the Jesus cartoons and how they are so careful not to offend such an old religion.

Cheers everyone


Posted by: Mill at March 5, 2006 10:17 AM

Mark Watson are you the cartoonist one? I thought so
Graduate studies of math didnt get you think logical did it?
IF A is unacceptable and B =Ax1000000000 then B will be at least as much unacceptable as A . Maybe thats too high for your maths brain.
In one word I could explain best: If you are an islamosfascist asshole why dont you get the fuck out of our country and look for residency in Saudi Arabia where you could continue not publishing Mohammed and continue publishing Christ giving blowjob.
Schooling made you so dumb that you dont even realize what an idiot you became. Now you lost ALL your opportunities for any job in your field. I have a lot of time on my hand and I will send your piece of art to every single company in Canada that works in your field..Maybe you gotta stick with the cartoons hey? All your studies now mean NOTHING , because nobody with a right mind would ever hire you little slimeball.

Posted by: Markisanass at March 5, 2006 11:16 AM

Pilot, my friend, you should switch your support to STM! That's what I've done!
And Mark: this is what I think you're really saying:
1)this cartoon is acceptable, no offence intended... but...
2)I DIDN"T WRITE IT, DON'T BLAME ME!!!

Posted by: Bushman at March 5, 2006 11:22 AM

I don't have time or the sufficient sanity after the irrationality which I have been reading all morning to respond to everything on here, but I will say this. You missed every point possible.

I am not a leftist, I am not a heathen, and it was not hateful. and MOST IMPORTANTLY: MARK WATSON HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMIC. Y!PH WROTE AND DREW IT AND ONLY HAD INPUT FROM A CERTAIN GROUP OF INDIVUALS WHO ALSO CONSIDER THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS.

Posted by: Y!ph at March 5, 2006 1:42 PM

Also, if you truly believe that fanatics are representational of all Muslims, then please, reconsider your thoughts and stop being a hypocrate.

Posted by: Y!ph at March 5, 2006 1:43 PM

Please continue to phone your friends, relatives, coworkers and anyone whom you feel will find this hypocrisy offensive. !

I personally made over 40 phone calls yesterday, calling students, pastors, business leaders etc. Please take the time to call the list of Sheaf advertisers advising that you are boycotting them until they no longer advertise in the Sheaf and that you will be urging your friends to do the same. Safeway will require an email to likely get some attention.

Ask your friends to phone their friends etc.

I think our collective take on this is that "an apology" IS NOT ENOUGH, in this case. Heads must roll.

Good Luck All.

Posted by: BDT at March 5, 2006 1:46 PM

Y!ph,
There is no value in turning this conversation into a who or who is not a Christian. Suffice to say what Jesus said:
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:20-21

Your work speaks for itself as to whether you are a leftist or a heathen.

What you are "not" obviously is either brave or apologetic. I wrote Mark a letter in which I asked him to get a copy to you. If I had your email address I would have sent it to you directly. I see you are too cowardly to include your email address here so that you could receive proper feedback on your very public statement.

After not printing the Mohammad cartoons out of "respect" you then decide to print this. At the very least it is hypocritical and cowardly and is without a doubt one of the worst examples I have ever seen of a double standard by the press. You and whatever group of consultants you collaborated with ought to be ashamed.
Maranatha

Posted by: m at March 5, 2006 2:01 PM

The natural end result of socialism/Islamism: prisons, more prisons, more prisoners; Death. +

Iran: Ten-fold Increase in Number of Prisoners Since 1979
Posted by freedom44


Rooz Online ^ | 3/5/06 | Rooz Online
The head of Iran's prisons organization recently announced that the number of prisoners in Iran has increased ten times since the 1979 revolution. This announcement comes at a time when Akbar Ganji's five year sentence will end in three weeks and the 21-year-old Elham Afroutan remains imprisoned in Iran's notorious prisons. Afroutan had unknowingly published a satirical article in a publication in the Hormozegan province. The head of the prison organization said that since 1979, the number of prisoners had increased by ten times while the country's population had merely doubled. The shocking news comes amid regular media reports of... +
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590398/posts

Posted by: maz2 at March 5, 2006 2:13 PM

Principal Spanker??? Spanker? A Dickens novel it's not. LOL. Betcha Spanker wasn't spanked when he/she/it was a "kid".


Left liberal education: soma, aka "psychotropic medications"*; "free", for "presidents that don't act like cowboys". President Bush a cowboy? G'wan.
Discrimination aagainst cowboys from the left... sue them.

Next: Free lobotomies at the state nursery schools? +

"Principal Spanker disagreed, saying, "Times have changed. Learning has changed. We all want the same things for our kids' future: a clean environment, equal opportunity with equal pay, presidents that don't act like cowboys, and a clean environment. The kids need to know the truth...after all, they are tomorrow's leaders. I'm just thankful that we have psychotropic medications to get us through these difficult formative years."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590399/posts +

*Psychiatric Medications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are four main groups of psychotropic medication. These are the anxiolytic/hypnotics, the antipsychotics, the mood stabilisers and the antidepressants. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_Medications - 11k -

Posted by: maz2 at March 5, 2006 2:40 PM

Y!ph, you have gall to come here and pontificate: too much chutzpah, too little brains.

We are here becasue you have done something stupid and offensive: this is not about anyone else, it is about your inapropriate behaivior. Your cartoon was assine, it has hurt the University, it has been divisive and hurtful, it has nothing to civilized discourse, and you are still acting like a self-righteous little weasel. grow-up.

Posted by: Bushman at March 5, 2006 3:02 PM

"stop being a hypocrate.
Posted by Y!ph at March 5, 2006 01:43 PM"

Look who is talking now! I ask you again Yph would you consider drawing Mohammad giving blowjob?
If your answer is no, you implicitly accepted the theory that you are a coward ,that only dares to "poke fun" towards the literate and cultured Christian people. Moreover YOU DREW that piece of garbage from OUR money! If you want to draw Jesus in different sexual positions with different species of animals thats your perogative noone can stop you from being entirely insane. But when it comes to a University newspaper funded partly from university students' money you ought to feel obliged to keep your "art" for yourself and your islamist buddies, or whoever has a kick out of them. Just for your information the Sheaf most probably will have to rely strictly on advertisers in the future...rumor has it your funding WILL be cut in the very near future. Good luck in the REAL WORLD selling your ideas on the marketplace of ideas, not a subsidizes garbage.

Posted by: Mill at March 5, 2006 3:16 PM

First, I'll say that I think this will be my last point of involvement with this group on this topic. You can have my email address simply to alleviate Marq of the spam.

One thing though: do you realize that Jesus (Isa) is also a prophet of Islam? Therefor, I'm sure you'll see that this joke is not meant to be offensive to any specific group, so much as eye-openning.

I'll apologize formally right now to all of you for the mistake. Hopefully we can all now address our concerns to the person truly responsible, and that is myself.
Also - hopefully this can remain civil, and those concerns can be concise, and not repetative.
Furthermore, hopefully everyone who has made unnecessary remarks to entirely innocent individuals and groups, as well as slanderous comments towards liberals, so-called leftists, and especially the writers of The Sheaf and everyone connected to the institution.

Posted by: Y!ph at March 5, 2006 3:42 PM

T!ph, thanks for the apology, I think that's appropriate.
I'm prepared to forgive but not forget: I have no respect for the Sheaf: they printed this garbage even after passing on the real news story of the Mohamed cartoons (which I thought were actually clever).
I think that lasting damage has been done to the Sheaf and the U of S. This is nothing personal, these are institutions that have been comromised, goodwill has been lost. I am only one person, but I think that you will find that I am correct.
Good luck in your future endeavors, Y!ph, aka the capilist piglet!

Posted by: Bushman at March 5, 2006 4:04 PM

Mill says it best:
"By the way if this Jesus cartoon was published in whatever country and turned the Christian world into a raging bull burning down embassies and killing people, damn right I would expect the Sheaf to publish them...
THe reality is that if Christians were like Muslims, the Sheaf would have a nice little explanation why they do not reprint the Jesus cartoons and how they are so careful not to offend such an old religion."

Posted by: Nomorebs at March 5, 2006 4:22 PM

When I first saw this cartoon I thought it was a rendering from some inbred retarded hillbilly....turns out the UofS is accepting inbred retarded hillbillies on the Sheif editorial staff.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 5, 2006 4:22 PM

Y!ph!

* If muslims respected Jesus as much as Christians how can you explain the lack of muslim riots after each and every depiction of Jesus? For goodness sakes if Jesus was really relevant to muslims you would very possibly have no head on your neck.

*you call for a civil conversation...dont you think its not you who calls the shots in that question? Civility after blowjobcartoons? Dont you see the ridicolousity in that comment?
I think it is civil enough that you are not just not beheaded or burned but you can post comments on here without fear of being phisically harmed. Imagine the Danish cartoonists doing the same in Iran or Saudi..that would never happen.

*You call your cartoons eye opening..would you explain what should i feel right? Dont be kidding yourself..your cartoon was purposefully shocking with no message except that you draw whatever you want about Jesus and stay assured that you are unharmed.

Posted by: 0+0+0+ at March 5, 2006 4:49 PM

Y!ph
nice to see you come out of the closet. also nice to see that your taking some heat. i hope the UofS disbands that rag and my hope would be they ban you and the entire editorial staff. you wanted shock and awe. well i sincerely hope your going to get it.

Posted by: spike at March 5, 2006 5:05 PM

y!ph: I don't know what the hell you're saying with the "...so much as eye-openning".

Who's eyes, and why do they need opening? Seeing Jesus in the cartoon has a halo, that would be strictly a Christian/Catholic view and not the prophet version.

So you're reasoning like most airhead leftist inbred euphoric dingdongs is just that, leftist inbred euphoric dingdong reasoning.

Short on weed are we?

Posted by: tomax at March 5, 2006 5:16 PM

Y!ph:
"I am not a heathen, and it was not hateful"..."ONLY HAD INPUT FROM A CERTAIN GROUP OF INDIVUALS WHO ALSO CONSIDER THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS"

Mark Watson's blather was putrid enough but Y!ph, you win the slimy outhouse snake award. Your cartoon IS VERY HATEFUL to believers of Christianity.

Christians by definition love Christ with all of their heart, believe Jesus is their savior from a sinful world and the way into heaven.

Can you say with a straight face that depicting Jesus performing an obscene sex practice demonstrates love for Jesus Christ and Christianity? If you say yes, would you be willing to publish a similar toon depicting your parents performing likewise to demonstrate your love for them?

I don't know what religion you think you're practicing but it's obviously not Christianity. Also, the "Certain Group of Individuals" you've credited for input are no more Christian than Marilyn Manson. Christian believers could never have such a heart to support the debasement of the spiritual center of their religion with such obscene perversity.

The moral high ground you defend is really just the bottom of the hole where your heart lives.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 5, 2006 5:27 PM

Actually I'm starting to feel a little sorry for the artist. It's not his responsibility to edit the paper. People can submit whatever the hell they want. It's the editors job to determine content & reader reaction.

Posted by: Chris in Manitoba at March 5, 2006 5:42 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If you believe that the MSM should have printed the Mohhamed cartoons, then Y!ph has every right to draw this piece of shit and have it published.

We live in a democracy that is governed by laws and rights including the right to freedom of expression.

That being said, the way we protest this cartoon in Canada is by choking off any and all funding to the Sheaf by getting Capitalist advertisers to stop buying ads, getting their board and the people responsible for this cartoon fired for journalistic malpractice (not publishing Muslim cartoons, but not publishing this) or getting the whole paper turfed all together.

As Capitalists and Christians living in a democracy, we will not burn effigies, we will not riot, will not burn down the U of S. But one day when Y!ph and any of his supporters need a job in the private sector, we also have the right to make sure I and the rest of my capitalist friends make sure this asshole never works a day in his life for my dollar...

In Christianity, it's called reaping what you sow....


Posted by: The Greek at March 5, 2006 6:57 PM

peter.mackinnon@usask.ca
"If you could write even a small message about your displeasure, it'd really help out the students on campus."

Dear President McKinnon;

While not a resident of Saskatechewan, as a Canadian, a taxpayer and father of two children, I feel compelled to write to you.

I've found myself writing to a number of University Presidents of late, including President McLaughlin of the University of PEI and President Harker of the University of Cape Breton. Like this missive, each was due to the 'Muslim 'cartoon' controversy and their reluctance to refute fascism through the support of free speech.

I note that you have responded to a recent 'cartoon' in the 'Sheaf', which was entirely disrespectful of Christians by saying an 'apology' should be issued. The Sheaf, in its' refusal to publish the Jyylands-Posten material, cloaked itself in moral superiority, then goes out of it's way to offend another religious community with a gratuitous and obscene depiction lacking in any context. The Jyylands-Posten materials were published to illustrate and refute the undercurrent of threat and violence attached to doing their so, within a free and democratic society. This alone legitimized and made the publication newsworthy.

How so the cartoon in the Sheaf?

You should be dismayed and embarrassed by the sophomoric, childish and immature behavior of the editors of the Sheaf. It does not represent you or your institution well. If I were a resident of Saskatchewan, you can be assured I would seek an institution of higher learning for my children.

Regards
Randy O'Donnell
Nanaimo, B.C.

Posted by: Randy at March 5, 2006 7:02 PM

I am starting to feel a bit sorry for Adolf Hitler too. He cannot help it that the publisher actually printed his horrible ideas in Mein Kampf. Chris, both the author AND the Sheaf have to be held responsible for this incredible profanity!

Posted by: Aro at March 5, 2006 7:05 PM

As a capitalist and a Christian, I must say that the hypocracy of the editor of The Sheaf does not surprise me. Maybe Stalin was onto something in his first purge.......hmmmmmmmmmmm!

Posted by: odie441 at March 5, 2006 7:05 PM

re: The greek

You are absolutely right Greek...but please do not forget that it has already happened on OUR dollars...If that asshole drew this picture in any other magazine that the Sheaf there would be no question of legitimacy. But the Sheaf is funded by the students...in a compulsory manner. And that is the big problem..

Posted by: Sheeafite at March 5, 2006 7:18 PM

I have a question for the people who are offended by the jesus cartoon: if the Sheaf did publish the muhammad cartoons the week before the jesus one, would you be as offended as you are now and would you be calling for a boycott of the Sheaf and its advertisers as some are currently doing, or demanding your Sheaf fee back from the university?

Posted by: Jeremy at March 5, 2006 7:20 PM

This piece of crap would never be allowed on any decent grafitti wall behind the supermarket.

You know, the wall that informs you, God is coming... and he's bringing donughts.

148 comments points to the attraction trash has on people. I would be ashamed to add a comment to this sorry thread! TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at March 5, 2006 7:27 PM

Sheeafite... you're correct... all we can do is to make sure futher funding is cut... If you have to pay for this piece of trash by obligation, submit a "concientious objector because of the attacks on Christianity" note to your tuition... then watch the fun if the University turns your request down....

Jeremy... had the Mohhamed cartoons been published first, then the Jesus one... I for one would have still called for action against the Sheaf, but it would be on the heels of Muslims that would have probably done the same ...

Two wrongs... yada, yada, yada

Posted by: The Greek at March 5, 2006 7:28 PM

Jeremy,

Had the sheaf published the muhammed cartoons, then that would have removed a certain amount of hypocrisy in the publishing of the Jesus cartoon. I personally would have been (and am) offended either way. I'm pretty sure that I won't go around burning any buildings in regards to this though.

Also, I have seen the muhammed cartoons, and they aren't nearly as vile as this particular "gem." Kind of a tough comparison to make.

Posted by: Adam at March 5, 2006 7:29 PM

It still would be offending but it would debase the most important criticism : the blatant hypocricy. The two stories are not completely paralell. Even if the Sheaf was the first newspaper to publish the Mohammad cartoons it still would not licence such brutally perverse depiction. Since the Mohammad caricatures are based on true, relevant issues.. i.e. islam terrorism in the world. If there was a widespread scandal about lets say Christians being caught publicly giving oral sex then the cartoons would be relevant and acceptable even if they are offensive.
However, I still think the Sheaf would be in a better moral position if they did publish the Mohammed cartoons.

Posted by: Mill at March 5, 2006 7:36 PM

The reason The Sheaf printed the Jesus cartoon, but not ANY of the Muhammad cartoons, is because the editors of the paper are YELLOW CHICKENSHITS!
No sirree... no fatwas or jihads against those snot-nosed tykes; a yellow streak down their backs 2 ax handles wide. Only a dough head would buy the tripe that they were "sensitive" to the Muslim community, Muslim students, etc... regarding the Danish cartoons. The proof they aren't so sensitive about offending religious feelings is that they DID in fact print the Jesus cartoon.

Hey Sheaf staffers, why bother with an education, ya bunch of defenders of free speech? Say! I've got it! During seeding and harvest, the GIRLS could make the sandwiches while their mothers work in town, and the BOYS could bicycle them out to THE MEN in the fields! Good pin money in that, ya know, kids. And the MEN and WOMEN can continue to do the REAL work.

Oh, by the way, I'm NOT a practising Christian.

Posted by: Joe B. at March 5, 2006 7:49 PM

Here's my letter to the editor and to the president:

"We in the real world regard your hypocrisy on printing this cartoon while refusing to print the Danish cartoons as more evidence of your willingness to be Useful Idiots.
I'm an athiest, none of the cartoons offend me, however I do pity anyone who is so obviously in the intellectual and moral lightweight division trying to justify their refusal to publish the Danish cartoons by saying they respect religion and then publishing this one that shows no respect to Christianity.
However, all is not lost. By showing your true colors, you once again give the grown ups more reason to disregard the immature and illogical drivel that passes for leftish thought.
For example, have you noticed that all the issues the left hold most dearly, abortion, feminism, gay marriage, etc, are all condemmed, to the death in some cases, by the religion you chose to respect?
Thank you for showing us once again who you are and how you think. That is a valuable service. Plus, observing what passes for logic among lefties is always hugely entertaining.
Run along and play now.


PS, The real reason you chose not to publish the Danish cartoons was fear, not respect. Are you self aware enough to realise that?"

Posted by: Virgil at March 5, 2006 9:15 PM

Jeremy: "I have a question for the people who are offended by the Jesus cartoon..."

Well for starters, the Danish cartoons are done by professionals and were satire, if not comical.

The one done by Shei...err Sheaf was not only amateurish, but offensive more so than just a poke at Jesus or Christianity. I've seen better graffiti on toilet stall walls, the cartoonist is lacking in talent.

Has anyone bothered to ask if these "artists" are being paid? $120,000 mandatory support should be reviewed me thinks.

Is it a slip that shows your true colours in that you didn't capitalize 'Jesus', but capitalized 'Sheaf' in your posting?


Posted by: tomax at March 5, 2006 11:03 PM

No, it was not a slip and neither was the lack of capitalization on 'muhammad.' I'm not exactly sure how that shows "my true colours" or what that even means.

The problem with comparing the two cartoons is what might be funny to one person is offensive to another. What's satire to you? What's satire to me?

Also, the cartoonist was not paid. All submissions to the Sheaf, other than those written by people on the masthead, are done on a strictly volunteer basis.

If included in the twelve muhammad cartoons was one of muhammad blowing a donkey there are people here who--while denoucning the jesus cartoon as offensive--would find great humour in it in the same way I do with the jesus one.

Again, my only disappointment at the publication of "Capitalist Piglet" is that it was done after there was a clear decision not to publish the Danish cartoons. This double-standard issue, I'm afraid, has taken a back seat to the apparent offensiveness of the jesus cartoon.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 5, 2006 11:33 PM

I think that the main focus of this issue has been slightly lost in the offensiveness of this cartoon. I don't think anyone can deny the right the Sheaf had to publish that cartoon or even the artists right to draw it. It doesn't mean I like it, but I still would not like that right taken away from them. What I think people should focus on here is the hypocrisy of the editorial staff of the Sheaf who approved this cartoon for printing -- almost the same staff who refused to print much more newsworthy cartoons a week ago. I don't think anyone should feel the need to identify the artist, its not his problem, its the editor of the Sheaf's.

I hope that the recent attention to this cartoon produces results on the university campus this week and in the upcoming issue of the Sheaf on Thursday. I think writing the editor and the president are good ways to achieve that goal, but the focus should be on poor editorial judgement and poor taste, not on the offensiveness of the cartoon in question.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2006 12:15 AM

Jeremy:
"This double-standard issue...has taken a back seat to the apparent offensiveness of the jesus cartoon"

Interesting choice of words: "apparent offensiveness". Tell us Jeremy...would your parents think the Jesus blow-toon is "apparently offensive"? Do their opinions or beliefs count in your life? You must live in a near perfect vacuum because most peope I know that have seen that obscene piece of leftist hate tripe ARE very offended.

I wonder if your parents know what kind of apathetically soul-less kid they raised. Maybe you can demonstrate your winning sense of humor to them by actually drawing the Muhammad blow donkey toon you suggested for all to see and "apparently appreciate"? I won't be surprised if you're not a taker on that idea since it doesn't attack the easy target leftists love to hate: Christianity. Also, you're probably as chicken as the rest of the leftist bigots you toke with.

It's far from a double standard issue. The Jesus blow-toon is the newest example of many of the continuing attacks against Christian beliefs by radically leftist media in Canada. The Danish Mo-Toon situation combined with "The Sheaf"'s shining example of interpreted Christian love helps make it much more obvious.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 6, 2006 12:47 AM

Mike:
"but the focus should be on poor editorial judgement and poor taste, not on the offensiveness of the cartoon in question."

Let me get this straight..."The Sheaf" chose not to offend muslims with satirical toons about their most important prophet. Then "The Sheaf" shortly thereafter published a toon depicting Christianity's son of god in an obscene sex act with absolutely no redeeming commentary value. A toon that will deeply offend anyone with a hint of real Christian beliefs in their soul. Finally, Mike, you say that offensiveness is not a part of the issue.

With the long established behaviour of the leftist media to willfully offend all things Christian...IT IS THE ISSUE.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 6, 2006 1:04 AM

Martin, I'm not saying that I'm not truly offended by this cartoon, I'm disgusted by it. However, the reason why I'm outraged is not its offensiveness, its the hypocritical position taking by the editor to selectively print one type of offensive cartoon and not another. I am not a 'leftist', in fact I'm quite right, but I don't think that the offensiveness of this cartoon is the central focus. In fact, in response to Jeremy's earlier post, I wouldn't be so offended had the Sheaf published the Mohammed cartoons. I know the Sheaf is offensive and lacks any tact or class, but at least they would be equally offensive. I would still be disgusted by the nature of it but I wouldn't be demanding answers and apologies from the editor of the paper and the president of the university.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2006 1:13 AM

I have shown both my parents the cartoon in question as they have taken an interest in the current situation at the Sheaf. They didn't think it was particulary funny (well, my dad chuckled a bit), but they weren't offended.

They were actually quite supportive of me resigning when the Sheaf chose not to publish the muhammad cartoons. My dad thinks all the newspapers in Canada should run them.

If you really want, I can show the jesus cartoon to my grandma too.

As a side note, I'm not sure why you have labled me a "leftist," nor why you assume I "toke." But alas, if such generalizations make it easier for you to make in through the day, so be it.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 1:17 AM

Sorry, that previous post was addressed to my friend Martin B.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 1:18 AM

Mike,

Simple math...you used some variant of the word "Offense" seven times compared to only once for "Hypocritical" in your last comment. Even you know which one is the bigger issue.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 6, 2006 1:21 AM

Jeremy,

Good on you for resigning for the sake of free speech. That's one move in the "right" direction.

Does your dad think every paper in Canada should run the Jesus blow toon too? Are you going to impress him and Grandma by getting the Muhammad Donkey toon published (just for a good laugh)? Where does it say that free speech gives the right to publically offend others just for the sake of it? Does that matter to you?

Sorry for the toking comment...I realize you might have future political aspirations. As me calling you a leftist...you worked for "The Sheaf", nuff said.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 6, 2006 1:42 AM

They could publish that and not the Danish cartoons? I bet that bunch would burn the Swiss flag too. They deserve each other.

Posted by: Grace at March 6, 2006 1:50 AM

I sent the following to one of the president's staff:


I hear that a university publication published a cartoon about Jesus and a pig and an unfortunate incident.

I understand that the university president had this to say about the cartoon:

"I feel I must publicly communicate with our campus community on what I have just seen in the student newspaper.

In the February 23 edition of the Sheaf, the editors explained that they would not publish the controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. It is surprising that they did not exercise similar restraint in their decision to publish 'Capitalist Piglet' in the March 2 issue of the paper. This is a cartoon that is certain to cause distress to members of our community. It has divisive shock value only and does nothing to advance the understanding or debate for which universities should be distinguished.

The Sheaf should apologize to us all.

Peter MacKinnon
President"


I disagree with him. I don't find it surprising that the editors did not exercise the same restraint when it comes to Christianity as they did when the cartoons were about the prophet of Islam. Anybody who has followed the news in the last two months cannot find it surprising as many papers that "respect Islam" have continued to mock Christianity. The president must not have read many papers in the last few weeks.

But apart from that, I also find that the cartoon is not of shock value at all. Instead it shows a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, a difference that should not exist but unfortunately does. I foresee that no Christian will burn anything over such a cartoon. And if some do, the Christian community will condemn their acts, and not the cartoon.

The editors might have wanted to make that point. Or they might have thought that attacking Christianity is acceptable as they respect neither Islam nor Christianity and fear the one but not the other.

It is good that people do not fear Christianity any more. A religion of love should not be feared.

Would that the same could be said about the religion of peace.

Regards, Andrew Brehm


Posted by: Andrew Brehm at March 6, 2006 5:05 AM

I don't think anyone can deny the right the Sheaf had to publish that cartoon or even the artists right to draw it. It doesn't mean I like it, but I still would not like that right taken away from them.

The sheaf only has a right to publish if they pay for it themselves. After this the sheaf may have some difficulties doing that. Advertisers are getting some heat over this.

We'll see who squeals like a piglet looking for a free teat.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 6, 2006 8:20 AM

Jeremy,

The problem is that the Sheaf uses quazi-public sources to fund its shameless blatantly disgusting agenda. I do not think they are liberals at all personally. A true liberal would be the first to publish the Mohammed cartoons. The Sheaf reminds me to the darkest times of "communist" censorship that allowed hailing Stalin, but they silenced everyone questioning the system.
Good for you that you stood up and quit after the Mohammed caricatures. I would have done it much earlier than that. In the Sheaf I have sent in at least three opinion articles none of them were published...Why?? Because they were criticizing the "status quo. The fact that the school's USSU-Sheaf and all the rest are practically a whorehouse for bullshit political correct ideas..well up until now. Their political correctness only functions when its about protecting gays/muslims/indians/ or everybody else.

Posted by: Mills at March 6, 2006 9:27 AM

Y!ph - it really bothers me that you THINK that you're not hateful. Yet you ooze with bigotry and the worst double standards I've seen. You and anyone else that defends the publication of this cartoon while not publishing the 'islamist' cartoons is woefully ignorant of what a double standard truly is. Many of us wouldn't be commenting on this matter if you had even bothered to try to make a balanced approach. The fact that you didn't, indicates a lack of sensitivity that needs to be visited by a rights tribunal. I say again, you're a gutless bigot, as evidenced by leaving a fake e-mail address.

Posted by: the bear at March 6, 2006 9:40 AM

Y!ph, no matter what intent you had with the cartoon and no matter what your political or religious affiliations are, it comes down to this: have some basic decency and respect for people! Since the printing of my letter about the "Too Many Christians Not Enough Lions" cartoon in Memorial University's "The Muse," I've received all kinds of support from people who agree that, regardless of the intent of the cartoon, it went too far. The cartoonist just didn't care that he wasn't showing people the basic respect that they, as human beings, deserve.

Now I know a lot of you support the decision of Denmark's Jyllands-Posten to publish the Mohammed cartoons. I do too. Because of this, we are being criticized by many who see this as evidence of crass hypocrisy on our part. I can see why some people would think this; but there is a very important difference that shouldn't be overlooked here: many of the Danish cartoons were innocuous. They were also printed to prove a point: you shouldn't be afraid for your life to draw a cartoon in a free and open western democracy (Y!PH take note, these people stood up for your rights by doing what they did).

The cartoons from "the Muse" and "the Sheaf" have no such underlying goals. The only purpose of both cartoons is for the cartoonists to smugly congratulate like-minded individuals on their supposed "moral superiority" to Christians. I'm not going to comment on who's got the moral high ground here. That's not my intent. These cartoons were designed specifically to offend. As I've noted before on my blog, offending to make a valid point is one thing, but offending just for the sake of offending is quite another.

I can completely see why Muslims have gotten upset over two of the real cartoons Jyllands-Posten printed (as opposed to the faked ones designed to stir up mobs in the Middle East). And to be honest, I can sympathize with Muslims here. I get annoyed when people criticize my religion, even if they are making a valid point in doing so. I understand where moderate Muslims are coming from. What some people are missing is this: conservative bloggers aren't supporting Jyllands-Posten because they hate Islam. They're supporting Jyllands-Posten because of the violent reaction to the cartoons in the middle east (and yes, for the most part we're quite aware this has much to do with the politics of the region. Islam is simply the justification used by these rioters). There is no hypocrisy on the part of conservative bloggers when it comes to this issue - we support freedom of speech in the face of oppression and violence, but by and large we do not condone the random slurring of the religious beliefs of one billion people. And neither shoud "the Muse" or "the Sheaf" when it comes to Christianity. It's all about respect.

Posted by: Dante at March 6, 2006 10:05 AM

Also - hopefully this can remain civil, and those concerns can be concise, and not repetative.

My God. The utter arrogance. You throw out to the public one of the most offensive and uncivil cartoons designed to be offensive to many and then have the arrogance to demand that respondants be civil, concise and not repetitive.

What a piece of work you are.

Here's a concise summary of your talentlessness: your artistic talent sucks. I've seen 7th graders with better graphic talent. "Capitalist Piglet" is so over, so 60's, so unoriginal and so hackneyed. Ditto for insulting Christians - a cheap, easy and safe target. Jews or Muslims, you're too gutless to insult.

It's amusing that "slanderous comments towards liberals, so-called leftists" offends you, but you see no offense in slandering a predominate religion in NA respected by millions.

Your attitude is one of a not very bright, arrogant twit that I predict isn't going very far in life after your 15 minutes of fame.

If you find my response uncivil, then deal with it.

Posted by: penny at March 6, 2006 10:25 AM


Penny:...WELL SAID!!...I believe you spoke for a number of us...nothing more needs to be said (at this time). I spent my late teens at U of Waterloo and the 'Chevron' was a similar rag, run by the so-called 'enlightened gang'...appears the late '60's are alive and well at U of Sask's "Sheaf". The more things change..........

Posted by: Garry P. at March 6, 2006 10:35 AM

Would Y!ph be offended if someone published a picture of his Mom with a mouth full of pig semen?

From his juvenile reasoning above I can only assume he would welcome the publication of such a picture.

Posted by: TB at March 6, 2006 10:58 AM

Regarding the cartoon "Capitalist Piglet". This is truly a disgusting self serving piece of garbage made by overly idealistic book worms with nothing better to do but incite outrage from the community. I am sure you and your children will be proud of this handywork in your later years. Thanks for your sickening contribution to society!

Posted by: Blaine at March 6, 2006 11:09 AM

I think Y!PH (if that is his real name) made the same mistake a lot of talentless people do when they try to be funny, but don't know how to be funny: The have Jesus doing something sexual like performing fellatio on a pig or french-kissing Mohammed.

Religion, like politics, is a legitimate target for satire. But satire is supposed to be the use of humour to make a sociopolitical point. And to qualify as humour, you have to be funny, which is something Capitalist Piglet and its author are not.

Offence alone is not satire and rehashing old anti-Christian gags is not groundbreaking, or daring, it's just lame.

Posted by: Vox Poplar at March 6, 2006 11:10 AM

Think of it this way:

The kid who drew the cartoon, and the kids who publish the Sheaf, have likely got more genuine "education" from this entire canard than a year of university would provide! ;)

One of my favourite T-shirt slogans comes to mind;

"I Have A Liberal Arts Degree...
Would You Like Fries With That?"

Kate:

Maybe it's time for another "editorial" from you, a la 'Best of SDA', asking what these kids are really learning in these institutions. On our dime. I doubt very much that most working taxpayers really know.

Posted by: Mad Mike at March 6, 2006 11:23 AM

Y!ph

Lying Coward; You respect nothing and fear muslim violence.
Ignoble idiot!

Posted by: richfisher at March 6, 2006 11:31 AM

The other cartoon '...not enough lions' proves once again the lefts total lack of regard for, or knowledge of facts. For example, southern Democrats fought to the man to retain slavery against northern Lincoln Republicans. Not satisfied with losing the war, American Liberals create the KKK. Not only that, up until the early 20th century they were proud to be known as the party of the KKK. FDR, a Liberal, interned Japanese Americans during wwII, as did the Liberal PM in Canada, who as an anti-semetic, spiritualist fruitcake, was also dead set against Jewish immigration to Canada. The stinking left wasn't just against civil rights, they invented opposition to anybody deemed inferior and prosecuted minorities with every tool imaginable including lynchings, imprisonment, etc. And then last night we hear George Clooney Tunes talk about the great tradition of the academy (read left) of fighting for human/civil rights. Right on George, you self described 'old time Liberal' - and the rest of you brainless, baseless, and extremely dangerous twits. A proud history indeed.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at March 6, 2006 11:41 AM

Blah, it's a cartoon. Anyone who gets riled up about a cartoon, no matter what the subject or what the religion, needs to give their heads a shake.

The Sheaf was wrong not to run the Mohammed cartoon if they ran this one, but furor over any cartoon is what is truly funny to me.

Death to Capitalist Piglet!

Posted by: Todd at March 6, 2006 11:49 AM

Blogger appears to be having troubles so the link to my blog isn't working right now. Hopefully whatever problems they are having will be fixed soon.

Thanks.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 12:03 PM

Jeremy: While I agree with you on artistic freedom and whatnot, the problem lies with the artistic content vs commentary.

In the Muslim cartoons done by professionals, they were poking at some of the double standards and false promises like 72 virgins et al. That is satire.

satire ( ) n. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

SO in the Sheaf, Jesus giving a BJ to a capitalist is meaning what? Christianity blowing to money?

That's a big stretch, but could be argued, but considering the secondary character in the cartoon is Jesus, the same person who overthrew the money changers table, I find it not only irrelevant, but historically unfeasible.

As for "apparent offensiveness" I'm kinda lost in the PC talk here. It was outright offensive, no grey area here.

But nevertheless, it was wrong to publish that, no matter what editorial error or apparent something was done.

Wrong is wrong and leftist airheads go berserk when someone makes an absolute statement. Funny, in saying there is no absolutes, isn't that an absolute?

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 12:23 PM

Genuinely talented people at universities are too busy to be involved with pathetic liberalist garbage like these cartoons. Let's not insult the ENTIRE academic student bodies of these institutions. As the parent of a talented youth who will probably pursue two agressive degrees, one in music, another in engineering, I cannot imagine he would ever become involved with this garbage.

Many of you have quoted 'liberalists' as being behind, and supporting the latest 'freedom of speech' garbage. I too, would love to know what is truly motivating these young people. I believe they are wasting my tax dollars.

Many people in today's world are athiests, but that gives them no right to make fun of anyone's religious symbols. It's a sign of extreme immaturity on the part of those who create and enjoy this garbage. I mean it; these people are pathetically immature and uncreative. Futhermore, I am not sure they should be allowed the privilege of a university degree. Would you want them looking after your children, as a teacher, parent, day care provider, etc? I doubt it.

Posted by: dddkinnear at March 6, 2006 12:28 PM

"repetative"
"hypocrate"
All that hard earned tax money wasted on an education for a cowardly punk who cannot even spell.

Posted by: Lylebert at March 6, 2006 12:34 PM

The kid who drew the cartoon, and the kids who publish the Sheaf, have likely got more genuine "education" from this entire canard than a year of university would provide!

Sadly, I doubt these arrogant halfwits learned anything from this.

By age 18 or 20, if you don't have a moral compass, core values, good taste and commonsense you aren't likely to change that much. Oh sure, they'll have a college degree at the end of their time on campus. Big deal.

As stunts go, this cartoon transcends the innocent ones. I can't imaging one of my kids or their friends ever conceptualizing such a cartoon. Period.

Posted by: penny at March 6, 2006 12:35 PM

It would appear the Sheaf http://www.thesheaf.com has blocked access to downloading section A of the current issue. They don't want people to see the cartoon anymore?

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2006 12:40 PM

The University of Saskatchewan Student's Union (http://www.ussu.ca/) has issued a statement on the cartoon controversy. Not really as condemning as I would have liked, but then I figured the USSU would side with the Sheaf.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2006 12:43 PM

I knew that would happen so I saved a pdf copy for myself.

Posted by: Chris in Manitoba at March 6, 2006 12:44 PM

Blah, it's a cartoon. Anyone who gets riled up about a cartoon, no matter what the subject or what the religion, needs to give their heads a shake.

Would you say the same if someone similarily insulted your mother?

Posted by: ol hoss at March 6, 2006 12:59 PM

FYI: Got a letter back from the President's office apologizing. So that was nice.

I replied and borrowed from a poster on here, albeit a bit altered version to drive the point home, the Sheaf is not self supporting and therefore should show a bit more class, instead of crass in its publications.

-------------

Dear Mr. MacKinnon,

Thank you for your email, I got wind of your response from other UofS alumni. Guess this cartoon ticked off a lot of people. This just goes to show the difference [between Christians and Islamic radicals], we write and call, others burn buildings and cars.

To be honest, between you, me, and the fence post, a few students have commented as to why they pay $6.10 towards the newspaper few read. You figure this times ~20,000 students at the UofS that comes to about $120,000.

That's a lot of money going towards a magazine that doesn't uphold consistency don't you think? Some heads (excuse the pun) should roll.

Here are some thoughts:
------------------------------------------
What would 120K be enough for a year?

- The University could buy 150 new computers each year, apparently the existing ones are old.

- Give away 2000 monthly bus passes for those in financial need.

- Build a University owned coffee shop and generate revenue to support student activities from sales.

Priorities no doubt are shown to the magazine, better to insult Christians than risk having riots and burning buildings.

Cheers
Tom

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 1:03 PM

Hey Jeremy, while I applaud you quitting on principle - don't take my questioning personally, but you are an "apparent" source to help clear the air on this matter.

Would you have any idea where one could get a budgetary print out of where the $120,000 goes towards the paper ends up? Seeing artists and others I assume are volunteers, what are the printing costs versus wages of the paper? How much revenue is generated by the ads?

But the big question is what is the ratio to printed copies versus returns? Meaning how much is returned on a monthly basis from the distribution bins to indicated actual readership, or are those statistics not kept?

Being a university supported by public funding and your (past tense) paper being supported off the backs of students don't you think more accountability is required? Would be good practice for the real world where budgets and shareholders require this, unless of course you work for the Liberals where anything goes.

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 1:10 PM

Well, it is just a cartoon at the end of the day, and I'd imagine those kids are on one hand pleased as shit at the attention given them, and on the other scared shitless at the attention given them.

In the end though, it ain't worth that much to speak of. They are just kids... what the hell do they know. Nope, we are blaming the wrong ones here...

ITS THEIR PARENTS WE SHOULD STONE. Whoohoo...

Posted by: William Macdonell at March 6, 2006 1:13 PM

My understanding is that the budget numbers are open to all students, since they do contribute to the finances. And stats on the number of copies picked up are also kept.

As for accountablility, there is a Sheaf board of directors (made up of students) that deals solely with the financial side of the paper. Depending on how strong a particular board is, the quality accountability can shift from year to year.

And wages? I can tell you that I made far less the minimum wage. The staff is paid an honourarium, not a wage or salary, and it is pitiful.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 1:25 PM

William et al: To address the "Just a cartoon" comment.

While true, the old addage of the pen being mighter than the sword comes into play.

While true, nations have gone to war, and stopped war over the pen.

While true, 13+ people have died over Muslim kiling Christians in the past month as a result of cartoons, both fake and real.

While true, to pass this off means you don't really care or uphold freedom of speach. To have freedom, one must have rules.

And that my friend is where the left thinking get all bent out of shape...rules.

There is also the cause and effect rule of nature, you offend me, I should do something about it.

I turned the cheek once, then I turned the cheek the other way, or twice, but the Bible doesn't say what to do after the third slap...

And that my friend was satire, so relax.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 1:31 PM

Reading a comment on another blog I think some good points were made, but at the same time the "typically Canadian" move of just ignoring it doesn't help either.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/03/u_of_saskatchew.html#comment-14727387

Unfortunately that is one reason why this country is in such deep pig crap, we've ignored too many things for too long, and they don't go away, they just fester...till when do we amputate?

----------------------------

Here's my suggestion. You should do what millions of Canadians over the age of 30 ( of which I'm one ) do when it comes to campus newspapers.

Ignore them. Nobody gives a shit, what a bunch of college-aged kids think.

It's their job to be rebels without a clue.

Sooner or later, like all good Canucks....they'll grow out of it.

This really is much ado about nothing, except for those who drink the Jesus Juice, and bloggers trying to find yet another story to trumpet their indignation, on a slow news night.

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 1:53 PM

Y!ph said:

"Also, if you truly believe that fanatics are representational of all Muslims, then please, reconsider your thoughts and stop being a hypocrate."

---Some education he's getting. Correct words would be "representative", not "representational" and "hypocrite", not "hypocrate".

Reminds me of the ridiculously assinine dumbasses at my own alma mater who drew (very poorly) phalli and ani on the mens' room stall walls and gave a date and time or phone number for "good head"...

As to the substance, or lack thereof, of this individual who clearly won't get feck-all out of his time at university, I would point out that most terrorists are actually Muslims, while most Muslims aren't terrorists... at least as far as we're still assuming.

I wonder just how much dope this dope has sucked down over the years to shatter so many of his grey matter cells?


The leftist-in-denial-due-to-lack-of-knowledge-of-what-is-a-leftist also wrote:

"One thing though: do you realize that Jesus (Isa) is also a prophet of Islam? Therefor, I'm sure you'll see that this joke is not meant to be offensive to any specific group, so much as eye-openning."

---Sheik Gilani of of the Jamaat ul Fuqra terrorist training camps also claims that Jesus was a Muslim. Other than an Islamofascist's claim thereto, what proof is there of this? I've never heard of such a thing.

Complete imbecile... can't see anyone at all being offended at the sight of their savior going down on a pig? Astonishing. Not meant to be offensive to a specific group? What, then, was the intent? To titillate his bum buddy friends and get a little congratulatory action for it?

Clearly he ought reasonably to have known Christians would take great offense... if he can predict Muslim rage, why not Christian anger?

He must necessarily be charged with a hate crime, as far as I'm concerned... or hauled before the Human Rights Commission or Tribunal or whatever appropriate body... he should suffer for his offence. An apology isn't sufficient; an example must be made.

As you can see, we Christians don't call for his decapitation. We're civilized, not barbaric.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at March 6, 2006 2:02 PM

I need to invent a car powered by hatred.

At least you can tell this happened in Saskatchewan - where bitching and complaining is an art form!!

Yes, yes I know. I have nothing of substance to contribute to this conversation. Sorry, my torch and pitchfork are in the shop.

I just wanted to stop in and comment on how sad it is that you people have so much spare time to bitch. All that time could actually be spent doing something productive, like wiping the drool from your chin.

Posted by: Rafe at March 6, 2006 2:08 PM

Considering that many in the world consider Bill Clinton a god, I thought this cartoon was bill and monica. Islamoidiots kill, burn, cut off heads, when offended. Christians cut off the money. Will someone take the sheath to the human rights court for offending them. I hope some alumni of UofS will let us know when the requests for money comes out so we can respond with letters saying sorry, you offended me with supporting the sheath and forcing students to pay for it. Students are starting to protest against leftist profs. One was suspended in the US recently after a student went public with a taped lecture given by his prof. Students walked out to protest. How did he get the message out-talk radio, and eventually via the msm. There are Rushbabies enrolling in many universities, and challenging the status quo. It will take time, but things are changing. Canada will eventually follow. Maybe my future great grand kids will be able to get an education and not propaganda when they go to school.

Posted by: maryT at March 6, 2006 2:15 PM

Thanks Rafe for the enlightenment...

Funny how a mirror works, did you see yourself in it today?

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 2:15 PM

"Brief statement regarding “Capitalist Piglet”
News
Written by The Sheaf
Monday, 06 March 2006
The publishing of the cartoon “Capitalist Piglet” was a mistake. The Sheaf takes full responsibility for its publication and we apologize deeply and sincerely for the offensive nature of it. We are currently formulating a more formal apology in our forthcoming edition (March 9, 2006) of the Sheaf.

We are deeply sorry and apologize to all our readers and volunteers.

The Sheaf Staff "

I think this should end this sad, disgusting affair. At least I hope it does.

Posted by: SouthernOntarioan at March 6, 2006 2:27 PM

Tomax, I saw a guy who has more important things to do with his life than be offended on behalf of others.

But thanks for the zinger. You write those things yourself?

Posted by: Rafe at March 6, 2006 2:28 PM

Rafe: Actually no, I get my inspirations from washroom walls...

...here i sit broken hearted...

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 2:33 PM

"offended on behalf of others"-- Rafe

So you are assuming that no one here is a Christian?

Upon what evidence do you base this?

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at March 6, 2006 2:35 PM

I think that if a human rights tribunal had a look at this and found that the $6. each student contributes each year to the Sheaf should be an optional charge,
well that would be a more fitting ending than any meek apology.

Posted by: marc58510 at March 6, 2006 2:42 PM

The Sheaf just cost the University a sizeable donation that my wife and I were arranging to give (and they know that). Our position is that unless and until the persons responsible for publishing this garbage are expelled, we will decline to contribute to the University.

Posted by: Alumni at March 6, 2006 3:33 PM

People should realize that the Sheaf is an autonomous organization. The university administration cannot shut down the paper or fire staff and neither can the students' union. The Sheaf levy is collected by the university, but it has no control over the operations of the newspaper.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 3:44 PM

RE :Rafe
I need to invent a car powered by hatred.

Thanks for your funny comment...as much as I hate to use your pathetic analogy..Once you suceed inventing one, the prototype needs to be parked right at the Sheaf editor's office ready to go on a long long journey.
The hatred coming from this cartoon is beyond imagination,and pointing out reactions as "hateful" is like criticizing the Antifascist League for not being understanding about Hitler's massacre.

Posted by: Mill at March 6, 2006 3:49 PM

Jeremy,

So if i decide to make a campus newspaper can you guarantee me 120K/year and that no matter what I write in there, i wont be cut off funds or fired?
That would be just fair wouldnt it?
It is perfectly understandable that the Admin. has no right to fire an editor. What i still do not get that how they got the money in the first place, and who decides which paper receives those levies.

Mill

Posted by: Mill at March 6, 2006 3:54 PM

Any revisions to the editorial policy?

"The Sheaf will not publish any racist, sexist, homophobic, or libelous material."
The 'toon was deemed fit by the act of publishing it. +


What is the editorial policy of the newspaper?

The Managing Editor(s) have the right to veto any submission they deem unfit for the Society newspaper.

In determining this they will decide if the article or artwork would be of interest to a significant portion of the society and benefit the welfare of the readers.

The Sheaf will not publish any racist, sexist, homophobic, or libelous material. +
http://www.thesheaf.com/about/

Posted by: maz2 at March 6, 2006 4:06 PM

Here's how things work:

Over a decade ago, students voted in a referendum that asked them if the Sheaf should be autonomous from the students' union. They voted overwhelmingly 'yes.'

It was agreed that the university would collect the Sheaf levy. The U of S Board of Governors approves the fee, and therefore approves the collection of that fee. This is who would decide if the the $6.10 should be collected for next year.

Of course, if one wants a bunch of unelected (ie. appointed government cronies), unaccounatble people making decisions about press freedom, then this is where one should voice their opinion.

There is another paper on campus published out the engineering college: The Redeye. I believe this paper is totally funded by that particular college. I don't know how one goes about securing funding without going through a college society, although I'm sure now there are people who will now be looking into it.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 4:16 PM

Jeremy,

Here is where I stand on the issues. Do you agree with any of the statements below?

*the Sheaf acted out of fear when not published the Mohammad cartoons, and NOT on the base of not offending certain groups
*A university paper by definition does have to be controversial sometimes, and allow an array of views to be represented. Including views that the Sheaf has silenced successfully in the past
*A university paper should not be funded by compulsory fees, because of the nature of its possibly offensive manner.

Mill

Posted by: Mill at March 6, 2006 4:31 PM

So the students were free to decide if the Sheaf should be autonomous from the S.U. but they are not free to decide if they want to pay for it?
I wonder when the CBC is going to pick up on this one...

Posted by: marc58510 at March 6, 2006 4:32 PM

Thanks Jeremy for hanging in here and answering questions, kudo's to you for that.

The final decision is done by the editor correct? Then that editor should show some class and step down, like how you did over the Muslim cartoons.

I just looked at the Sheaf website and there is an apology, (a poster mentioned it earlier) so is it time to drop this?

Yes and No.

Yes as "we" made a point - the cartoon was not only offensive but a mistake.

No as to what goes through your (generally speaking of Sheaf staff/cartoonists) in allowing this?

Was it just for 15 minutes of fame? Well you got it, plus if some posters on here are real, a serious kick in UofS financial support.

Was it to prove we can laugh at Muslim cartoons but not ones towards Christians? Well that point is so dead and old, I am not sure what the purpose was, of couse "we" can. South Park, Simpsons, artistic pee portraits, and so on.

So I have to ask, what was gained by all this?

To that, will tell me if the Sheaf, yourself and others learned something postive from it, like respect.

Rather than OoooooOoh, these right-wing-top-button-shirters do know how to read.

cheers
tom


Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 4:40 PM

My wife is more Christian than me.

After looking at the Sheaf site with me she said she's glad for the apology and I roughly quote:

"God bless and have mercy on them because they didn't know what they are doing".

Humbling for me because I recall Someone else saying that a long time ago...

Guess I'll shut up now ;-)

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 4:49 PM

Tomax,

...here I sit broken hearted...

Thanks for the laugh. I haven't thought about that one for years...

Oh and where can I buy one of those hatred powered cars? Those would be cool....

Posted by: The Greek at March 6, 2006 4:49 PM

Jeremy, the university collects the Sheaf levy from every student and it is mandatory.

Businesses also donate to the Sheaf, as 'Lost Budgie' listed on her site.

Now we are talking *more* than $120,000.

What does the university admin ask for in terms of financial accounting, for that kind of money, from the staff and board of 'The Sheaf'?

Anything?

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 6, 2006 4:54 PM

The Sheaf just cost the University a sizeable donation that my wife and I were arranging to give (and they know that).

Thank you, Alumni, for hitting the university in their wallet. It is probably the only way they'll get it. Shame is too fleeting.

When you let the inmates overrun the asylum as so many of our university administrators have done since the 60's, there ought to be financial penalties for the mayham.

Posted by: penny at March 6, 2006 5:00 PM

Buffalo Bean:

There is a financial audit (Deloitte and Touche, I believe) done every year, plus there is a full time business manager who does book-keeping.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 5:01 PM

The cartoon doesn't seem to be a gag strip, so I assume it is editorial in nature.

Was the point just to offend people, or was the point to demonstrate that one type of offensive material would get out into the open world for criticism, while another type of offensive material was stopped dead in its tracks before it could get to publication?

Posted by: lrC at March 6, 2006 5:04 PM

Mill:

1. I would say both of those fears, plus all of the other reasons, can be put into one reason: fear of backlash...from students, the university, the media, the community, local muslims etc.

2. I would say any media outlet, not just ones found on campus, have to be controversial at times to properly do their job. Perhaps the "pentagon papers" case in the states might be a good example of this, but there are myriad others.

3. There are university papers across the country that are run in many different ways: some with compulsary fees, some without. The size of the university, or, more specifically, the number of students attending a particular university always play a part in determining the funding structure. Take U of Toronto, for example. That university has something like 10 different publications. Are they all funded by students? Probably not.

The U of S is a medium sized university. If there weren't compulsory fees then it would have to cut down on print runs (meaning less advertising revenue as well), cut down on the page count, cut down on staff and perhaps even move to a twice-a-month format. Or go back to getting funding the students' union. But government control of the press is something I'm sure we can all agree is a bad thing. All of these options lead to diminishing the quality of the paper.

The good thing about compulsory fees is that everyone who pays them can contribute to the paper. The bad thing is that, yes, you might have to take into account the reactions of other people when you publish something.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 5:15 PM

The UofS website shows what the students' Union has to say about this: http://www.ussu.ca/

Nice, but I also noticed the ad to the top right, "Carnival of Sex Drag Show".

Erg. Guess I've been out of the loop too long, thought stuff like this happened only on National Lampoon's "Animal House".

---------------------------------
Dang...said I'd shut up...

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 5:17 PM

FYI:

UofS Financial Statement:

http://www.usask.ca/uofs/annual-report2005/financials2005.pdf

(Go to page 23, but not sure which section/department the Sheaf is buried under.)

shut up, shut up...

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 5:49 PM

Jeremy wrote: "People should realize that the Sheaf is an autonomous organization. The university administration cannot shut down the paper or fire staff and neither can the students' union. The Sheaf levy is collected by the university, but it has no control over the operations of the newspaper."

Jeremy, fact is that the university does have both the right and the responsibility under hate laws, etc. to shut down the Sheaf. The Sheaf is operating at the pleasure of the university and has no right to do just whatsoever the damn hell it pleases. Should the university support this act of hatred against an identifiable group in any way, shape or form, it could very well become the subject of serious legal consequences. Think Human Rights Commission. Think decertification by the state and the withdrawal of public funds. Think extinction.

The university must at least expel all responsible for this act of hate. After all, if the cartoon was directed at Muslims or homosexuals or some other darling of the politically correct left, they would certainly act to expel.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at March 6, 2006 6:02 PM

"I wonder when the CBC is going to pick up on this one..."

Never. I bet the CBC's just having a good moonbatty chuckle over this. If they're even aware of the cartoon.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at March 6, 2006 6:05 PM

Jeremy: Although I pay the compulsory fee, I have not been allowed to contribute to this paper. I have written many letters and none have been published. My college has written many articles promoting our professional awareness activities, yet they were refused. The only thing that seems to get into the Sheaf is left wing Arts and Science drivel and about 20 articles on Huskie sports each week. I have yet to read an article promoting college activities or awareness. I'm sure many students on the U of S campus care about these issues but yet I have not read anything about them in my four years here. So if we truly can to contribute to the Sheaf, then maybe the Sheaf should actually publish something other than the mindless crap they usually do. Thats another reason I want my $6.10 back.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2006 6:08 PM

Canadian Sentinel:

I don't care if the offended group is christian, muslim, homosexual, left-handed, or Survivor fans: offending someone is not a good reason to shut down any media outlet.

Isn't that why we've all be arguing for the publication of the muhammad cartoons and why it's been a story for so long, because journalists have been arrested and jailed, newspapers have been shut down and fatwas doled out like candy?

I'm having trouble understanding why people have focused on the "hate speech" portion of the issue when so of many of the same people were in favour of publishing the muhammad cartoons. It's a bit of a eye-opener isn't it? Now, when it's your religion that has been mocked, it hurts a bit doesn't it? The real issue here is the double-standard of treating islam different than other religions or institutions.

Let's not forget we live in a secular society, whether one likes it or not. Religion, and the figures that represent religion, are up for satire, mocking, ridicule just like politicians, celebraties and businesses.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 6:13 PM

Jeremy - the intent in publishing the Mohammed cartoons began as a demonstration that media in Europe were "self-cesoring" out of fear. The legitimacy of that editorial comment has been demonstrated beyond argument, by the destruction of embassies and mass riots.

The question then became - "why is western media denying a secular democracy the opportunity to view the Danish cartoons to place news reports of violence in context."

That was the point in which the desire "not to offend" crossed the line into journalistic malpractice. That students at a university newspaper are incapable of understanding these distinctions is an indictment of the educational system, and of the University itself.

Posted by: Kate at March 6, 2006 6:19 PM

Mike:

I'm afraid that I'm going to call bullshit on that. The Sheaf (except for this week I assure you) rarely receives any letters to the editor. Maybe two a week. And if there was ever a glut of letters we always chose to run the ones that were negative, mostly because we derived the most humour from them.

Above my desk at home I have all the hate mail I and my column have received this year; hate mail is a badge of honour.

As for articles promoting college activities and fundraisers, off the top of my head here's a list of events and fundraisers the Sheaf promoted in the last year: Cystic Fibrosis fundraiser, Engineering Pi-Throw, International week, Blood donation drives, islam awareness week, Campus Cafe, the opening of the student health centre, Vagina Monolouges, the USSU Trick-or-eat campaign, Habitat for Humanity...

I could go through the archives if you want, but I think I've made my point.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 6:22 PM

I agree with Jeremy here -- the issue is not the offensiveness, its the hypocrisy of the Sheaf. I was offended by this cartoon but thats not my main motive in wanting action. The Sheaf regularly offends as do many campus newspapers. The issue here is that they have chosen to pick and choose who they will and will not offend. That is the inexcusable story here and one that I am pissed off about.

Posted by: Mike at March 6, 2006 6:24 PM

Dang, I was going to shut up.

Jeremy, again appreciate the fact you're speaking up for a paper you no longer are associated with.

We may have to somehow define what construes the word "offend". But this would only turn into a left/right pee'ing contest where no one will win.

The point isn't who or what is being offended, but why? To what purpose was this published. To what purpose does the editor and others NOW say "ooops" and not a couple of days or so ago when this was published and distributed.

Then the wrong logical angle some are taking in comparing a satirical poke of a short supply of virgins being NO WHERE comparable to the main character giving BJ's to a pig.

I can understand this ranting of tisk tisk, you right wing folks are being hyprocritical happening if a leftist magazine rack special did the uh, cartoon, but when a University, with edumacated stud_ents spunging of tax dollars and student fees do it.

So here's another question, if the Sheaf was a viable stand alone, self supporting paper, I'd probably just say "smart move exlax", but because this was a University, indirectly supported by tax dollars...well, one would expect more.

[Exlax (c)(r)(tm) and that other stuff...]

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 6:26 PM

Y!ph, What a clever boy you are, using punctuation as a letter in a name. Can you explain what it means?

Can you explain why you are so scared as to not post a real email address? By offending Christians, you know you'll get nothing more than a tongue lashing. And people like me who think you are a moron will still defend your right to make any statement you so desire.

Seriously though, please do publish a cartoon featuring Mohammed being sodomized by Osama Bin Laden. See how many mainstream Muslims leap to your defense.

Posted by: Kyla at March 6, 2006 6:42 PM

Jeremy, sometimes one should quit when they are ahead.

Unfortunately, you still do not get it.

The Mohammed cartoons became THE story, when the rioting, announcing fatwahs, and deaths began.

Those who had not seen the cartoons, were at some loss as to why all this backlash was happening.

That is WHEN the media had the responsibility to show them the cartoons for the *information* they provided.

The Sheath, on the other hand, IS the story.

It is very different.

As long as there is the pretence of not knowing the difference, the story will continue to be The Sheath.

And the funding will be part of the equation, as that is the only subjective way to bring it home.

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 6, 2006 6:43 PM

...well 'smooth move exlax'...but that would imply consistency, functionality and...

ok, i'll shut up.

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 6:45 PM

Okay lets see the question with pure statistical measures. If the editors and Ex-editors of the Sheaf
feel that they do a good job and their paper is popular they should call for cutting of funds themselves and turn this brilliant paper into a flourishing business..Here are the facts
The sheaf has 40 issues a year..therefor each issue is subsidized by 3000 dollars. Now if they are really secure about the popularity of the magazine I hope that they would expect at least 2000 buyers a week( currently they print 10 000). I think anyone would pay 2 dollars for a good weekly magazine right? So there you have 4000 dollars..THAT IS MORE THAN YOUR SUBSIDY!!!! What are you guys at the Sheaf waiting for? You could make serious money!!! Or maybe you are not so confident in your talent that you can make a paper that can actually be SOLD??? Wait a second, then maybe you should look for another job than journalism.

Posted by: Jellemen at March 6, 2006 6:49 PM

Wow, there's a whole lot of anger brewing up on this page. There's also a lot of exaggeration and intolerance being thrown into the fray.

While I believe that the Sheaf has the right to publish the cartoon, I really wish they hadn't. It's blatantly offensive in its anti-semitism and disrespect for Jesus, and it's not even remotely funny.

Many people on this board are calling for boycotts and firings and even the boycotting of the school itself. There is talk about how the 'lefties' are all brainwashed idiots with no regards to the realities of life.

I consider myself a 'lefty,' and this generaliztion of those of us politically left of center is something i find both a disconcerting and familiar. Many 'lefties' (including occasionally myself) are guilty of the generalization of right-wingers as war-happy, money-hungry hicks, and this issue has brought me to understand that it works both ways. (prejudice = bad, no matter where it's coming from.)

Also, many people have commented about the 'Carnival of Sex' Drag Show which was held at Louis' on Friday, March 4th. The USSU LGBTA (Lesbian, Gay, Transgender and Ally) Centre has been putting on fundraiser drag shows for at least 3 years, now. The focus of this particular show was on sexual health and education. It was a 19+ event. There was no nudity. There were no orgies. There was no ACTUAL SEX at the event. Some of you just saw the words 'Carnival of Sex' and were immediately disgusted, and that's just sad.

Lastly, regarding the Muhammad cartoons... I respect the Sheaf's decision not to print these cartoons. Their editorials on the subject were quite well done. Calling for the Sheaf to print the Muhammad cartoons as well will serve no purpose except to anger even more people.

- In short, printing the 'Capitalist Pig' cartoon was a big mistake, but the mistakes of a few 'artists' and editors should not be held against the entire Sheaf organization, the University, or left-leaning people as a whole. Those responsible should be remorseful, and from what i've heard, some of them have already tendered their resignations. (although I do not believe anyone should be fired, I think the author(s) of 'Capitalist Pig' should not be allowed to continue to submit his/her cartoons)

- Also, I think that maybe we 'lefties should learn to be a little more tolerant of the 'righties' out there, and hopefully some more of the 'righties' will show us some of the same tolerance in the future.

Posted by: Buck at March 6, 2006 6:53 PM

Buffalo Bean:

I made that point about "duty to inform the public" over two weeks ago and reiterated it a week ago (link below), I'm mearly coming at this from the many angles of this issue: why does one cartoon deserve calls for freedom of the press, while another cartoon dealing with a different religion doesn't?

And, if, as you say above, the reaction to muhammad cartoons became the story, isn't that where this is issue of the jesus cartoon heading, or already is, or at least should be?

Anyway, I have to go watch the news coverage of this debacle.


http://waywardreporter.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-sheaf-must-publish-cartoons.html

http://waywardreporter.blogspot.com/2006/02/we-now-return-to-regularly-scheduled.html


Posted by: Jeremy at March 6, 2006 6:59 PM

Blk.Bean right on,

Jeremy,

Lets pretend this whole Jesus cartoon gets worlwide attention because of the outrage in the Christian World. Then a student magazine in Thailand talks about the issue but for some curious reason doesnt dare to offend the negligable Christian minority and does not reprint the Jesus cartoons even it it was with educational purposes . Next week in the same student magazine (paid for by the student paid by students' money they would show Buddha sodomized by a mountain goat. What do you honestly think the mainly Buddhist students' reaction would be.
This is how you have to see this case.

Posted by: jellem at March 6, 2006 7:02 PM

The irony is incredible but not surprising.

Cartoons can offend apparently all over the world.

Posted by: steve in bc at March 6, 2006 7:05 PM

Buck, typically lefist thinking in bending the discussion - so I will give you that, leftists are consistent,

Hmmm...I did mention that word before somewhere.

The case in point isn't whether or not the Sheaf can or cannot print the cartoon, but why now, and what purpose after saying "want to respect muslim's", and finally who's paying for this publication?

In the uh, real world, if someone screwed up big time, and not some 'accounting error' mistake, but a major public relations disaster, they should be fired, if not resign before being fired. I think that comes with part of the job of being in charge, you know, editor and all.

With the "I think the author(s) of 'Capitalist Pig' should not be allowed to continue to submit his/her cartoons)" - well who's being the judge now? I'm hearing double speak. Either they can publish or they can't. If they can't submit, then that must mean 'censorship'.

Dang I just swore in leftist speak, sorry.

Just curious where are the "many people" who commented about the 'Carnival of Sex' Drag Show" is found in this blog? I must have missed them, seeing I'm the only one to do a poke at it. Even the poster is suggestive with a young lady in her bra on it. Download the whole poster...

So thanks for the clarification in there won't be 'anything' going on...you know the hanky panky kinda stuff...*wink wink, nudge nudge*...

But I merely said I was out of the loop with the going on's for campus entertainment seeing I used to love watching chess matches, bingo calls, and was president of the debate and chemistry club...

You know, the real men stuff, with all the excitement and pizzazz which don't seem to make the Sheafier, err Sheaf publicastrations.

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 7:11 PM

Sorry Bucky, but what would you expect people to think when they read "Carnival of Sex Drag Show", clowns in pink cars doing the quarter mile?

As for the cartoon catastrophy, lets say that even the left realize they blew it (pun intended) but are too stubborn to admit it. Instead Jeremy and his granny are trying to figure out if it is tomayto or tomaaato.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at March 6, 2006 7:14 PM

Jeremy,
You said "...hate mail is a badge of honour."

Huh! Is that what this is really all about. Did the editorial staff at the Sheaf make a concious decision to see how much "hate mail" they could generate?

Well surely their cup runneth over! If promoting hate and offence is what this is all about, then mission accomplished!

I listened to Gormley this morning as Liam talked about this as an editorial or production mistake (I never could figure out which). What a load of crap. I haven't heard that much spin since the last Liberal scandal!

When Liam started talking about "the collective" I thought we had changed stations and were picking up a rerun of Star Trek. "The Borg collective is everything, individuality is meaningless, you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile". > Give me a break.

I had no idea how embedded the communists had become in our University. That is generally the plan though, control the press and control the minds and the agenda. Chaiman Mao, Lenin, Stalin and Castro would be proud of the little "collective" you have going there. Liam wouldn't answer John Gormley's questions straight up. He was deferring to the "collective". Methinks the "collective" need to nominate a spokesperson because there are still some outstanding questions that need some answers. Perhaps Comrade Liam or Comrade Mark or Comrade Jeffrey could step up to the mike.
I did appreciate cadre Liam taking Johns call and offering an apology, Good on ya. Beyond that spin, spin, spin...
Daniel

Posted by: Daniel at March 6, 2006 7:15 PM

...HEY leave tomatoes out of this, that's a sexist comment you shriveled prune!!!

hehehe

;-)

...and here I thought IT WAS a car race...i must be really out of the loop...

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 7:17 PM

Steve in B.C. anyone has the right to be offended by anything they damn well please..that is called democracy. What they cannot do is burn down houses and kill people in their offended-ness. Thats what makes Christians different from muslims.The story behind muhammad cartoons was not that they were offended..but that they wanted to force their religious standards on a christian countries private newspaper. I can be offended about the cartoons in Saudi arabia on Jews Christians but I do not have the right to burn down the Saudi Embassy because of it.

Posted by: Lella at March 6, 2006 7:18 PM

tomax:

I should have been more clear: the reason i thought the cartoonist shouldn't be allowed to submit his/her works anymore was to keep the peace. if 'Capitalist Piglet' continues to be featured in the Sheaf, it will just cause more grief for all involved. I say shelve it.

Perhaps you're right about those responsible getting sacked.

Regarding the 'Carnival of Sex', I basically skimmed through a lot of the comments, and saw it mentioned twice. I guess that's a little more of my 'lefty-ness' over-reacting again.. but my point still remains.

Buck.

PS: i've seen the poster. I'm friends with both of the models featured on it. isn't it kind of funny that there's a supposedly heterosexual scene on a poster advertising a drag show?

Posted by: Buck at March 6, 2006 7:24 PM

...not to mention the amount of purple and pink being used on the poster also.

As for using hetro's well, trying to bridge the gap maybe - see "we're normal too".

...OOOOOOOOooooooooooh all together now...

...I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok...

-----------------------
Dang, now I got that song in my head...

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 7:28 PM

Kyla,

Y!ph did leave us an email address on an earlier post so that his friend Mark wouldn't continue to be spammed. March 5, 2006 03:42 PM

Hid address:
Yphcomics@gmail.com

Daniel

Posted by: Daniel at March 6, 2006 7:30 PM

not to get into a pee'ing contest, but the word "Drag" only showed up once before your posting...point defeated.

Funny thing this CNTL+F command...

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 7:31 PM

tomax:

As for using hetro's well, trying to bridge the gap maybe - see "we're normal too".

i suppose you didn't quite understand what i was implying when i said supposedly heterosexual.

check out this article from the very same issue of the sheaf.

Posted by: Buck at March 6, 2006 7:37 PM

also.. your 'see, we're normal too' comment is pretty heterosexist. heterosexuality is not the only 'normal' sexuality... it's just the most prevalent.

PS - 'carnival of sex' appears twice before my post. yup.

Posted by: buck at March 6, 2006 7:40 PM

Cartoons can offend apparently all over the world.

Right on, big Steve. Missed by you and your sniveling ilk is the big story on how the offended react. Can you get that?

Has the Sheaf been burned to the ground? Anyone under a fatwa

I'lll repeat again(and every time you utter your dribble), you are an asshat looking love in all of the wrong places.....

Posted by: penny at March 6, 2006 7:40 PM

Penny...always like a dog jumping quick on the bone or comment.

Yes, I've read the news lately and do seem to notice again that people who believe in imaginary beings, besides being gullible, liable to be easliy offended and led by others using the offense as a ruse, are separated not by their faith but by how far they'll play out their anger.

Posted by: steve in bc at March 6, 2006 7:49 PM

The problem is with the muslims killing people over their "imaginary beings" as you put it. Not saskatonians being pissed off that the Sheaf from public money offend Christians in a brutally disgusting way. Nobody wants to arrest the cartoonist let alone behead him. If you have a problem with religious people's reaction go to Saudi Arabia and tell them to stop the violence..that should be your first priority.

Posted by: lo[p[ at March 6, 2006 7:55 PM

In short, printing the 'Capitalist Pig' cartoon was a big mistake, but the mistakes of a few 'artists' and editors should not be held against the entire Sheaf organization, the University, or left-leaning people as a whole.

"Artists"?????

Are you for real?

That smarmy crap in crayon by some punks doing a 7th grade shock jock drive-by is "artistic"?

Buddy, you are roadkill masquerading as steak if you think that's art. Th only birdbrains that have come forward to defend that trash have been the "left-leaning" you plus generic all around idiot steve in bc.

Posted by: penny at March 6, 2006 8:00 PM

penny...
calm down girl, your going to bust a blood vessel.

Posted by: spike at March 6, 2006 8:07 PM

penny:

notice that the word 'artist' is in quotation marks.
it means i'm being sarcastic, and that i don't seriously think of him/her as a decent artist.

Posted by: buck at March 6, 2006 8:09 PM

I'm wondering where the quote saying, "the Sheaf chose not to publish the Jyllands-Posten cartoons out of respect to Islam," came from. I've got a link to the sheafs article that states why they didn't publish the cartoons and it provides a very different reasoning?

http://www.thesheaf.com/features/features/trying_to_connect

Posted by: ktt at March 6, 2006 8:22 PM

oops that shouldn't have a question mark at the end

Posted by: ktt at March 6, 2006 8:23 PM

Reading some of the comments above makes it very difficult not to go into full rant mode. I still can't believe this has to be said, but some individuals seem either to have basic perceptual problems or are just messing around to piss off those of us trying to make logical points.

If a cartoon of Mohammad sucking cock, on a pig, of all things, had been run by The Sheaf; Saskatoon Canada would have been at the center of an international incident. Not only would the "face" of Mohammad being exposed be offending, but the blow-job, on a "pig" of all things, would have caused death and destruction worldwide from New Dehli to New Port. The little asshats who drew the cartoons would've spent the rest of their lives in hiding. If the Denmark cartoons caused a stir, The Sheaf BJ toons with Mohammad replacing Jesus would've caused Jihad... period.

The point is... Islamofascism is completely out of step with anything and everything we represent as a society, be it Left, Right, or Center. For some bizarre reason, only the right seems to have recognized this. Islamo-fascism is about murder, slavery, and barbarism... yet the idiots of the left draw BJ Jesus cartoon to mock Christians and refuse to run the Danish cartoons from hell.

There's an enormous storm brewing, with incredible repercussions internationally. Islamism is the next great challenge for human freedom. Canadians are already dying facing it... yet the idiots at The Sheaf draw BJ Jesus cartoons to mock Christians and Jews and RightWhingers.

Frankly... they are beneath my contempt.

Posted by: Debris Trail at March 6, 2006 8:27 PM

Debris Trail, perfectly said!!!

Posted by: Chris in Manitoba at March 6, 2006 8:34 PM

Oh my (insert favorite deity here)! So now I am a heterosexist AND a prune. Say it isn't so. So the "Carnival of Sex" advertises vibrator races. Is that like frantically running around the house looking for that damned "C" cell?

Sorry, me bad. I'd thought a bit of humour would lighten up the gang of normal (prevalent kind) people that are pissed at the moonies defending that piece of sh*thouse wall graffiti.

That and to see if I can push the comments counter over 300!

Posted by: Texas Canuck at March 6, 2006 8:36 PM

kinda funny to see the Sheaf blacked out the entire cartoon section in their downloadable pdf.
I dont think it should be taken off. Let the world see what kind of student paper are we running in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Ayatollah Jeff Macdonald leading our way.

Posted by: sheafite at March 6, 2006 8:41 PM

Let's not forget we live in a secular society, whether one likes it or not.

Not hardly, Canada is 80% Christian. Whether one likes it or not.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a.htm

Posted by: ol hoss at March 6, 2006 8:41 PM

The "aha"-ing of people who claim that there is a double standard here, in the supposedly varying treatments of the Danish cartoons vs. Capitalist pig, is half-baked. Has any commenter here who feels the cartoon is inappropriate suggested that Kate should not display the cartoon, so that we all can discuss the fuss?

I haven't seen that suggested even once. Throughout the discussions about what is and isn't appropriate, and about what the cartoons reveal, and what is or isn't an appropriate action, if any, there seems to be a tacit understanding by all sides in the midst of this minor tempest that it is only by viewing such things that the issue of its creation and publication can be examined.

I think for many people -- and and truth this is not specifically the fault of the "artists" who created this cartoon in particular, nor the U of S -- it is the hypocrisy of supposed "Canadian values" which rankles. When personally threatened by violent theocrats, the "progressive" media, including student newspapers, responded by cooperating with the agenda of that threatening group, and dsscribed their own cowardice c as "consideration for religion" and "respect for religion".

When you see the way Christians are treated, the hypocrisy becomes so over-the-top that you have to stand back about ten miles to even see it anymore. When the subjects are Christian and not Muslim, those same "respectful-to-religion" types feel not only a limitless right to insult as they see fit, but to go as far as they possibly could, and with a tangible, reputation-enlarging sense of "boundary-breaking" and daring.

"Capitalist Pig" is more exemplary of this double-standard than it is actionable. Stuff like that isn't necessarily created for the purpose of offending Christians or anyone else; it's often done to be "cool" and dangerous, in a way. "Capitalist Pig" would certainly be significantly more offensive if the person who drew it was fifty-something and not a young student.

Apologies have been issued all around, and I think the majority of those who were offended aren't intent on punishing the offending cartoonists.

Posted by: EBD at March 6, 2006 8:48 PM

An enormous storm brewing? Is there a christian version of jihad?

People say that they are globally fighting islamist fascism and confronting evil. Come on...you're typing.

We need to cut the bullshit and remind these people that fighting strawmen (lefties,universities,media) and fighting guerrillas are vastly different things.

There are "For Rent" signs on Penny and Debris hats, with their inability to get certain salient details right...all the cartoons are offensive, but they are cartoons. I'm not defending them, just mocking the over reactions.

Posted by: steve in bc at March 6, 2006 8:52 PM


I wouldn't get too excited about this: the Capitalist Piglet will be disciplined as soon as someone in authority realizes that pigs are offensive to Muslims.

Posted by: Mark F. Proudman at March 6, 2006 8:52 PM

uhh... Texas Canuck...
that comment (about the heterosexist comment) was directed at tomax...

anyways.. i'm tired of posting here.
if anyone wants to reach me, please do so by e-mail.
thanks, and (insert favourite deity here) bless.

Posted by: buck at March 6, 2006 8:55 PM

They have pulled all copies of the Sheaf out of the distribution stands across campus. At least in the three buildings I've looked at.

Posted by: U of S'er at March 6, 2006 9:20 PM

i have seen hundreds in the trashbins just outside Arts..I dont know if it was thrown out by the offended or the Sheaf..

Posted by: uofeser2 at March 6, 2006 9:26 PM

Quick uofeser2 grab them!!!

We can sell them on eBay as I'm sure the stock price has gone up substantially...

Who's a tomatoe?

Posted by: tomax at March 6, 2006 9:42 PM

'Bout time for education taxes to go DOWN and tuition fees to go UP if this is the kind of thing they are being used for!

Posted by: Dr_Woof at March 6, 2006 10:31 PM

y'no this has gone on for way way too long
all in favor of dropping this thread say aye

Posted by: kelly at March 6, 2006 10:31 PM

Sorry, Buck, i misread you.

Steve "all the cartoons are offensive, but they are cartoons" still is a generic idiot.

Hey, Steve, not all cartoons are equal. Christ having oral sex with a pig doesn't equal Mohammed with an(apt as per the Koran) bomb in his turban. Verbal backlash is not equal to riots, death threats and embassy bombings.

People say that they are globally fighting islamist fascism and confronting evil. Come on...you're typing

Right. The pen is mightier than the sword in this culture. So typing is an appropriate citizen's response. It removed Dan Rather and Eason Jordan from the MSM here. It keeps the MSM on their toes and as these little cartoonists learned they can publish while we can type a response that matters.

Your style, Steve, is the smug put down. It's wasted on me.

Posted by: penny at March 6, 2006 10:38 PM

And for all you folks you think they have the "right" to publish this crap - there are hate laws on the books in this country and in this province which make it emphatically clear that there is NO right to publish this kind of material. In fact - it's clearly illegal, and it's about time the laws were enforced!

Posted by: Dr_Woof at March 6, 2006 10:44 PM

I think this has been handled very well. No need to go to kangaroo court.

Amazing what happens when Christians stop being doormats.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 6, 2006 11:09 PM

Great post EBD. Likewise, what I find most remarkable is the glaring cowardice and hypocrisy of the Sheaf and its editors. When confronted by the tacit threat of violence from the islamofascists the Sheaf and its ilk backed off and avoided anything even mildly critical of islam. Instead of having the guts to admit, as one American newspaper did, that it was not publishing these clearly topical and newsworthy cartoons out of fear of violence, the Sheaf instead tried to wrap itself in the flag of virtue and fatuously claim that they were not publishing these cartoons out of respect for religious sensibilities. The capitalist piglet cartoon has shown that to be a bald-faced, craven lie. The editors should resign, not for having given offence to Christians (as they certainly have done -- and not for the first time I suspect) but for their pathetic lack of journalistic courage and integrity as well as the utter lack of maturity and insight required to even admit what a collection of cowards they really are.
The lesson here for students is to learn how intimidating and inimical to free expression even remote threats of violence really are. Hitler had his Brown Shirts (the SA) for a reason -- they worked. I hope that in future the Sheaf will refrain from moralizing from the safety of the cloistered ivory tower about men and women who are making tough and courageous choices in the real world.

Posted by: DrD at March 6, 2006 11:14 PM

Debris Trail NAILED it! EBD gets it, as do others whose comments I've read posted here. steve in bc DOESN'T seem to understand the only issue about the cartoons THAT MATTERS! The story isn't about cartoons about Jesus or Muhammed. The REAL story is how media outlets EVERYWHERE were cowed by Islamic fascists, and the FEAR they just MIGHT be close enough to hand that, well, why take the chance (Theo Van Gogh).

I've been around long enough to remember riots in the ghettos of major American cities like L.A. and Detroit (late '60s), the FLQ crisis (1970), the Vietnam war and the ignominious exit of the U.S. from Indochina, Watergate, Tehran in 1979... lots of other "stuff", too. The SUCCESSFUL intimidation of ALMOST all media IS THE MAJOR STORY OF OUR TIME! Only willfully ignorant fools cannot see it. Come ON! Ya DON'T need a Ph.D, fer cryin' out loud!

I was a CONSIDERABLY left-of-centre liberal until my early thirties, although I DID eventually come to understand that leftist politics essentially contribute ALMOST nothing to Western society, except MAYBE a bit of balance... that's about it, seems to me now... and printing ONE cartoon without printing, say, the Muhammad/turban bomb 'toon just AIN'T balanced!

That said, we all know why The Sheaf didn't print the Muhammad cartoons; FEAR, pure and simple. As well, it's plainly evident that the editors at The Sheaf DID NOT feel the same physical threat vis-a-vis the printing of some repugnant Jesus cartoon.

Don't believe a confrontation's coming between fundamentalist Islam and the "free" world? OK, fine. What will wake you? A truck-bomb going off in downtown Vancouver? A nuke on Tel Aviv? Or maybe a Canadian news editor with a knife in his back because of some seemingly innocuous story, picture, doodle, etc...

Posted by: Joe B. at March 6, 2006 11:25 PM

DrD... BULLSEYE!
Wish we had a Churchill right about now... or some of those Iron Men of 1939.

Posted by: Joe B. at March 6, 2006 11:31 PM

I can think of nothing in the recent past that I have found this offensive.I think this is something that should offend everyone whether they are Christian,non Christian or any other religion or non religious. It escapes me what they were trying to state with this garbage.Iam tired of these perverted Leftist thugs using the podium of " free speech" to trash anything they wish at will. This has nothing to do with free speech.It is offensive behavior in its purest form. Our society should not have to put up with this and it should be dealt with.
I guess what I am really having a problem with is the excuses that the spokesman for the Sheaf used while on Gormley's talk show this morning. I didn't buy any of it. He stated that this was nothing more than a " mistake" and something that was missed by the editors. Give me a break!!!! If that is the case, each an every person involved with this paper should be fired on the spot, which is not a bad idea. I am a graduate of the U of S and right now I feel ashamed that total wastes of skin like this are allowed to control the journalistic fabric of such a reknown place of learning. If I could blacklist each of these people from ever holding any position of authority for at least 10 years, I would do it. As you can tell, this has upset me... and it may take me a while to get over it. This is a rare case of studidity at its finest.

Posted by: Grant at March 7, 2006 12:02 AM

Kate! You've been linked by The Egyptian Sand Monkey! This story DOES have legs, not?

Posted by: Joe B. at March 7, 2006 12:20 AM

I'm guilty. I emailed him Kates link last night. I guess that tossed little gas on the fire.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 12:58 AM

I would find it interesting to see the Muslim's take on this, as they acknowledge Jesus as a prophet.

Make ya a deal, draw me a cartoon with Mohammad doing the BJ and I'll draw ya ones of the Jesus at the gates saying they ran out of virgins.

All the liberal left airheads posting in here should be able to support that decision of fair play right?

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 1:01 AM

Tomax: Re your comment March 7, 2006 01:01AM.

Spot on. Agreed.

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at March 7, 2006 1:16 AM

tomax,

Okay, not to many religious bones in me ... but I'm is about as right wing as you can get.

I think we are looking at two different things -- rules within specific religions (this is not universal) and offending religions.

So, the Muslims have a fear that they might idolize the cartoons - it's their problem ... not any one else's in this world. The monks in Tibet also have rules - they don't expect us to to follow them.

There are, however, quasi rules that we need to function in a society. There should be, and there is ... more the most part, a level that decent human beings won't descend from. The rag from the U of S went out of it's way to show how they can limbo under this bar.

The world really doesn't need images of religious icons, mothers etc giving bj's to pigs, other animals, other whatever. I don't think that is what life is about.

Posted by: ural at March 7, 2006 2:09 AM

Dr. Woof > "there are hate laws on the books in this country ...... it's clearly illegal, and it's about time the laws were enforced!"

Sadly, Woof, is right. There are laws against free speech in this country. But they should be REPEALED not enforced!

Lefty hypocrites, cowards and twits like those who drew and published the U of S "Capitalist Piglet" cartoon should be exposed not supressed.

Stand up for freedom of expression!

Posted by: JR at March 7, 2006 3:04 AM

this whole thing just makes me wonder what the hell these people were thinking

Posted by: Canard at March 7, 2006 3:30 AM

No knock on religion, or anyone of any faith..., or anyone right/left/centre, but it seems nothing starts more wars/fights/arguements/debates/discussions/protests than politics and religion. Probably because those that following one or both do so with passion. 326 posts, and counting!

Posted by: Snookie at March 7, 2006 4:29 AM

"offending someone is not a good reason to shut down any media outlet."-- Jeremy

Then it would necessarily, logically stand to reason that you'd be opposed to the bill (C-250, I think) intro'd by Svend Robinson and imposed by by the leftists in the Commons which makes it an imprisonable offence to simply "offend" persons of the "gay" persuasion...

It seems like Mr. Robinson doesn't want to have balls anymore than do Muslims... sorry for the "offence"! Please don't put me in jail or chop off my head!

Why don't you do a cartoon offending homosexuals and see if you don't end up being arrested and imprisoned...

What's the big deal with the whole gay thing? Why is it considered that it's the one single thing which needs iron-fisted oppression by the state via the judiciary to be protected from any form of criticism or non-endorsive opinion?

Why is it considered so sacred that persons of faith, who are protected by the Charter at least doubly for their faith and for free expression, must be thrown into a gulag, a Gitmo or Abu Ghraib just for saying: "My religion forbids me from endorsing this"? And why haven't I heard of any Muslims being thrown into prison for expressing exactly what their religion orders them?

There seems to be multiple standards all over the place, with which the left is just fine!

I think this is another issue the cartoon matter exposes.

Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at March 7, 2006 4:43 AM

When i picked up the sheaf at first i did not even look at the cartoon... i took it home and my brother said "did you see that cartoon on the back"... i looked and HOLY CRAP! My brother and i just looked at each other... and i thought "Well this is typical. But nothing will be done".

Christians are easy targets. They will get mad, but i think it is hilarious that anyone would consider the "Christian Community" would become violent.

The University IS filled will children, regardless to what others have said. Age and maturity are two completely different things, respect comes from maturity, i have seen 60 year old men who never grew up. I don't care about your ideas on faith or whatever... but please don't use freedom of speach to mask your hatred.

Posted by: William at March 7, 2006 5:42 AM

The most shocking part of the cartoon was this: I did not ever think it would be an issue. As a Christian i see in the media people rebelling against Christianity everyday.

Frankly i am surprised it has caused this much debate, i think (although it is extremely offensive)the only reason anyone mentions it is becuase of other cartoons that have been in the news latley. I am all for freedom of speach and i enjoy listening to believers in Christ and people of other faiths discuss/debate, but i know in my church and my church bullitons there are no cartoons of homosexuals being tortured and no cartoons of Drs proforming abortions getting "whats comming to them".

The reason is this, freedom of speach is not something to abuse, it is a right, a right we should be proud to have and use with tact.

Posted by: Gilherme at March 7, 2006 6:00 AM

A legislator in New Jersey has proposed to take that freedom away. He wants a law requiring posters on blogs, bulletin boards to REGISTER their correct name with the ISP and make them responsible for slanderous/untrue comments.

Read more about this ass-emblyclown here:

homepage

Posted by: Al Czervic at March 7, 2006 7:11 AM

Al what's wrong with being held responsible for slanderous comments? Slander isn't a right of free speech.

Posted by: the bear at March 7, 2006 8:27 AM

Good morning Jeremy,

If hate mail is a badge of honour, publish the same cartoon with the prophet blowing piglet. I'll e-mail Canadian CAIR, U.S. CAIR, Al-Jazeera and anywhere else I can find. What do you want to bet that you'll be able to wallpaper your living quarters in the Fatwas alone?

Canadian Infidel

Posted by: Canadian Infidel at March 7, 2006 9:12 AM

Jeremy
I tried to post on your site, but unfortunately could'nt.
Did Y!th attend the 2 hour debate that you mentioned solidified the Sheafs decision to NOT run the Danish cartoons out of "respect for religion?"

Posted by: richfisher at March 7, 2006 9:25 AM

I think the cartoon is extremely offensive to both Pigs and Hog Farmers. Animals should not be portrayed in that fashion.

Posted by: Ed at March 7, 2006 9:34 AM

Good morning everyone, here we go again...

richfisher:

No, "Y!th" did not attend that meeting. He actually never comes to the Sheaf except to drop of his cartoon.

I think the site is up and running now, for your commenting pleasure


Canadian Sentinel:

Of course I'm against any legislation curtailing freedom of speech. That's what leads to people getting jailed for thoughts. There's that oft-mangled quote from Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," or something like that.

As of my "badge honour," let it go buddy. That was facetious comment and I would hope you have other points of debate to take up with me. But ya, bring the fatwas on...maybe I could meet Salman Rushdie.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 7, 2006 9:49 AM

...hey what's the record for posting at SDA?

We could talk abou the injustices done to pig farmers through the cartoon.

But yeah, draw a cartoon with Moham or Homose instead and see how far this gets. Probably not far in blogs, but MSM, the government and this Minister of That will be shutting down this blog.

Ah, I love equal rights, just some are more equal.

Hmm...a pig did say that didn't he?

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 10:01 AM

"Of course I'm against any legislation curtailing freedom of speech. That's what leads to people getting jailed for thoughts. There's that oft-mangled quote from Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," or something like that."-- Jeremy

Well, I'm glad you've demonstrated consistency in that matter (of the law Canada has which cracks down on non-flattering speech wrt sexual minority groups--LGBT and whatever-- with possible imprisonment). Perhaps you should publish your opinion denouncing this exclusive special treatment of one specific group in the face of other groups enjoying no such iron-fisted protection.

Of course, then you might find yourself bunking with a big, fat, hairy gay man who's doing time for serial rape... scary thought... eh? Such is the power of the Liberal-appointed judiciary and laws.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at March 7, 2006 10:09 AM

I've been reading the blog (gasp! a university student (in an Arts program, no less) who can read) and am really upset to see how many are equating the Sheaf's stupidity with the intelligence of every student of the university.

Let me clear something up for the bloggers: The Sheaf is a rag. It's always been a rag. I have been on campus for 4 years and have been forced to pay $30 a year for this printed garbage. I won't waste my (and my parents') hard-earned dollars on The National Enquirer, but here I am, paying week after week for the Sheaf.

The Sheaf is NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the students of this university. Please stop painting me and my friends with the same DISGRACEFUL, tie-dyed hippie-leftist brush.

As a conservative at 22, I may not have a heart (which I think I do) but at least I have a brain. Maybe the Sheaf should grow one (a brain).

Jennifer
a disgruntled student

Posted by: Jennifer at March 7, 2006 10:20 AM

Also, though this has perhaps been mentioned by someone before, I also get another message from the cartoon:

It depicts a capitalist as bad and as swine. By placing the savior of Christians into such a terrible position, the cartoonist is effectively, logically declaring:

Jesus doing that to a capitalist... capitalists are bad swine... Jesus nevertheless would engage in such unacceptable relations with bad swine... therefore the cartoon slanders Christians as bad swine.

Or words to that effect. Don't have much time to comment any further now... busy.

Now, how can the cartoonist now claim to not be a leftist? He demonstrates the extreme, offensive dogmas of a hardcore, herd-mentality leftist.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at March 7, 2006 10:24 AM

Hey Kate: looks like this one finally hit the pages of the NP.

http://tinyurl.com/joans

Doncha just love this non apologetic apology:

"In order for us to rectify this foul-up, accidental though it may be, especially given the egregious nature of the offence given to a large section of our campus community . . . someone needed to fall on their sword," Robbins wrote in his resignation letter, obtained by The StarPhoenix.

Wow! Great political spin there...instead of the head editor accepting his responsibility for everything his staff does, He slips responsibility, blames some shadowy inferior for a "mistake" and takes the Romaneque' ethic of suicide to appease the "mob"...as if the complaints were unfounded and the higher ethic lies with the Sheaf...who only makes "mistakes" when if depicts Christ in fellatio with capitalists.....as if the message was correct but its publication at this time was a "mistake"....perhaps some other time when all these Christian zealots take the shackels of the freedom of the press.

Is this little Menshevik Robbins is in training for a Liberano cabinet post.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at March 7, 2006 10:25 AM

I like Jennifer! :-)

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at March 7, 2006 10:26 AM

Typical garbage by knuckleheads!

Posted by: sherwood baker at March 7, 2006 10:40 AM

This cartoon goes out of its way to offend on so many levels:
-Christians should be offended as Christ is portrayed as a homosexual
-Jews should be offended because Jesus was Jewish and there is a reference to Kosher diet
-Moslems should be offended as Jesus is is their prophet too
-Society should be offended at a public display of oral sex
-Society should be offended at a public display of bestiality (images of sexual acts with animals)
-Society should be offended at a representation of pedophelia (images of sexual acts with chilren) This was a piglet, a "child pig"
-I received a note from a lesbian this morning who is offended because people "constantly depict whomever they are ridiculing as homosexual"
There is lots of offence to go around.

Perhaps Jeremy's note was most telling when he said "...hate mail is a badge of honour."
If that was the goal here, then the cartoonists and editorial staff should not be surprised when they receive lots of "badges" after stirring up this much offence.
Daniel

Posted by: Daniel at March 7, 2006 10:42 AM

In order for us to rectify this foul-up, accidental though it may be, especially given the egregious nature of the offence given to a large section of our campus community . . .

better give yourself a shake mr. robbins, you offended a great deal more than your campus community.

Posted by: spike at March 7, 2006 10:44 AM

I'm also against any legislation curtailing freedom of speech, but I do believe that the Sheaf has horribly abused their right to it!

One thing I have observed about many small children; they want attention, and if it isn't positive attention then they go for negative attention. That is precisely what The Sheaf has done. And it has been successful as they are getting their desired negative attention they so pathetically crave.

The cartoon is absolutely disgusting and offensive to me. I am a Christian, but I would find it offensive even if I were not, because of it's pornographic content. So... I am a Christian and I am deeply offended by the content of this childish and lousy attempt at art/humor. And I am not calling for the death of the imbeciles who drew it and published it. Neither do I think an "apology" is good enough. A child will commit an offense and think "I'm sorry" will absolve him/her from the offense. Proof positive of the intellectual ability of these children.

Posted by: Gayle at March 7, 2006 10:45 AM

daniel you said it a whole lot better than me.

Posted by: spike at March 7, 2006 10:46 AM


Jennifer:...a "tip-o-the-hat" to you...most of the posters here know the "rag" doesn't represent the university...keep doin' what you're doin' !!

Daniel:...I agree with Spike...you have written the final chapter...time to move on folks...

Posted by: Garry P. at March 7, 2006 10:57 AM

What about the pig? He is obviously being portrayed as a homosexual. Is the cartoon implying that all capitalist pigs would enjoy a man performing oral sex on them? I think the pigs should start rioting and killing all other pigs that don’t agree with their sexual orientation. After that we could all have a great BBQ, some cool ale’s, get rip roaring drunk and focus on solving world hunger while dining on some good Q.
G

Posted by: Grey Mater at March 7, 2006 11:06 AM

The outrage over this cartoon goes to show the genuine hypocrisy of many individuals in this country. The fact that the people that most proclaimed freedom of expression/speech for the Danish Cartoons, are also the ones most vocal against the UoS cartoon. Get your heads out of your asses, What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

Posted by: Brick Wall at March 7, 2006 11:13 AM

"As a conservative at 22, I may not have a heart (which I think I do) but at least I have a brain."
Jennifer

Of course you have a heart! If you have brains too, I hear they are in short supply over at the Sheaf and are presently taking applications for editorial staff, including Editor in Chief, a position up until now, sadly lacking in brains. I suggest that you go over, drop off an application and take back YOUR newspaper! You go girl!

Posted by: Maranatha at March 7, 2006 11:25 AM

WL McKenzie hits the issue square on the head. The apology is so equivicol to really have no meaning at all. Therefore, compounding the insult of the comic by dismissing those who are upset with it.
Resigning is the easy way out. Now the board cant fire him..... but could the university expel him?
What a disgrace

Posted by: Jon at March 7, 2006 11:26 AM

Think clearly with me: There are two issues here: 1. Hypocrisy 2. Insult to The Name of Jesus Christ.
Hypocrisy by the Sheaf has been dealt with.
Let me say something about THE NAME.
God needs no one to defend him. Have you ever read "God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap...."
What no one is touching on is the fact that "God also hath highly exalted him, and given him THE NAME which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jeus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (This is a prophecy of what will come to pass, like it or not).
This is why folks are riled up on this issue. For the Sheaf to admit to a "mistake" is not good enough. The words "blasphemey", "abomination", "wickedness", "unspeakable", "vile", come to mind. "We did wrong" might be appropriate.
Why do folks use the Lord's name in vain? Because there's power in that name. Have I ever heard cursing in the name of Mohammed? Buddah? Krishna? Don't recall.
This name of Jesus Christ denotes the Creator and Sustainer of all living, not to mention the Saviour of those who put their trust in His shed blood. He is also the Judge who all the ungodly will face at the Great White Throne Judgement. There is no escaping him.
Don't say to yourself, well, I'm an atheist and I don't go for all this religious stuff.
There is no such thing as an atheist, for everyone has two witnesses to the reality of the Living God: Creation demands a Creator and you know there is a God every time you look up at the stars.You also have the indwelling witness in your heart. You were created by God in such a way that you can be only satisfied with Him. That's why all your pursuits for satisfaction still leave you thirsty.
I am hoping more than a few heads roll over this issue. For a respected school to allow this stuff is a revelation of the poverty of its character. I hope the U of S can clean up its act.

Posted by: pastorwally at March 7, 2006 11:31 AM

I noticed that the CBC in SK has picked up the story: they quote an anonymous source as saying that the cartoonist is a student at STM, the Catholic college on the U of S: I have to say that I find this extremely unlikely. I suspect that this is a deliberate falsehood, meant to malign the victim (Christians) and similtaneously to partially rehabillitate the cartoonist (to make him look unbigotted). I have to say that I would be sceptical believing anything that this cartoonist (or his/her friends) write or say. I may have inspired this artiface, as I have written above that donations to the U of S should be redirected to STM: that being said, there are also other worthy groups under the U of S umbrella, the point being that we should make our displeasure with the U of S known by focusing contributions to more specific and deserving parts of the institution.
I am grateful for Y!ph and his supporters for making this clear to me!

Posted by: Bushman at March 7, 2006 11:38 AM

The fellator is supposed to be Christ? I knew the scrawlers were lefties, so when I saw the halo I thought it was Jack Layton providing Buzz Hargrove with constituent service.

Posted by: Svend at March 7, 2006 11:40 AM

Regina Leader Post has a story today on this, and I found the link on Norman Spector's site (who lives in Victoria,BC). So it is getting around.

Linked from: http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/home.htm:

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=63c0f912-ccec-460d-998d-300f04d2232a&k=96312&p=2
~~~~

Jennifer, people know there is a smaller compliment of conservative students, and do not hold every student responsible for this paper's choices.

Many however, will not accept that this cartoon got on the back page "accidentally".

It is an opportune time for those who may have been in the background, to come forward to the administration and be heard.

We probably all have seen family discussions heat up measurably, when sons and daughters come home for the holidays, with newly minted ideas of life and what they are owed by society....

Or who is responsible for the condition of society....

Or the extensions and limits of what we say in public....

This is also something that can stick to the reputation of a place of learning. Whether that is a positive or negative remains to be seen.

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 7, 2006 11:45 AM

Hmmm...just read the StarPhoniex...

The last paragraph is ominous...

"There is a complete right of freedom of speech, and we should be allowed to push the envelope, but in a week's space, taking a stance on one issue and then completely doing something in the exact opposite light, (is contradictory)," Richards said..."

Me thinks, besides run on sentence, in doublespeak he's really saying:

"We screwed up, maybe should have published this a few months later on as it is the our right to freedom of speech".

Then don't know if I'm being anal, but I haven't heard the word "wrong" out of anyone's mouth over this. As in "it was wrong to do this [insult Christians, Jews, and Capitalism]".

What we do hear is "mistake".

"...And that's why we know we have to take the blame on this. We made a huge mistake."

Mistake as in: "Ooops we were caught", or Mistake as in: "We will use a grey word to say that this was poorly timed, rather than poorly thought".

Hmmm. Wrong vs Mistake.

As in "I made a mistake filling out my T4", or "I was wrong filling out my T4".

Ah, what do I know about Engrish...my bad.

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 11:53 AM

I think the left is more devious than anyone gives credit. The NPD controls the campus though the profs and student council.

This cartoon (badly drawn}is to get the populous to think of oral sex and buy up the tickets to hear one of their prophets Bill Clinton, who will blame 9/11 on everyone but the lefties.

He is the one that is resposible for a lot of the unrest in the world.
The left's aim to rid the world of morals and ethics is succeding. It seems to be acceptable for presidents to lie and politicians to steal

Posted by: scott at March 7, 2006 11:58 AM

I said I was done posting here.. but I had to add a couple more cents:

I don't personally see anything 'wrong' with the Sheaf printing the 'capitalist piglet' comic, just as I don't see anything wrong with anyone printing the jyllands-posten (sp?) comics.

I don't see this as a hate crime issue, either. the 'capitalist piglet' comic, while offensive to many, does not directly promote hatred in any way that i can see.

Should the Sheaf have printed the comic? Probably not.
Should the Sheaf have printed the comic the week after NOT printing the jyllands-posten comics? Absolutely not.
Exceptionally bad timing has made this comic strip much more of an issue than it would have been 6 months ago.

From what I've heard, the graphics editor at the Sheaf made a horribly bad decision to include the comic strip in this week's issue, and this was missed by Managing Editor Will Robbins. In my opinion, the Sheaf has, in general, been vastly improved this past year with Robbins at the helm.
Please understand that the Sheaf employees are also students, and have limits to their time spent proofing and re-proofing the paper. While this doesn't excuse the staff or Robbins for their oversight in printing the strip, it does help to explain how something like this could happen.

Also, the fact that the Sheaf wasn't immediately pulled from the stands also has to do with the freedom of speech issue. The question for the staff at the Sheaf once the issue had already been printed must have been "do we stand up for freedom of speech and defend out right to print this comic (which I believe they have), or do we pull the issues and save ourselves from the wrath of the offended public, in effect, censoring ourselves."
for a 'lefty' paper, this would be a difficult decision to make.

Posted by: buck at March 7, 2006 12:36 PM

Uncle Buck: "'capitalist piglet' comic, while offensive to many, does not directly promote hatred in any way that i can see."

...maybe if you opened your eyes...

Uh, what would constitute "directly" in your eyes then? The title is a dead give away n'est pas?

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 12:43 PM

hi everyone
im currently sitting at a computer in the U of S library. Ive been a student here for about 2 yrs now and usually pick up a copy of the Sheaf once a week to kill time before a class here and there. I can honestly say that it is generally a leftist newspaper, but that isnt surprising in the least if youve ever had to take a political science class here. Almost all prof's here have a strong hate-on for anything Conservative. Alberta bashing is also a common theme of most of my polital science classes. I would imagine that most other departments are similar. The only plus would be the fact that on a daily basis i am reminded of why i am a righty.

Posted by: labby at March 7, 2006 12:44 PM

Can anyone read the following, abstracted directly from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, and not come to the conclusion that a violation of the law has occured? Note that "Prohibited Ground" mentioned in part b includes, as defined in the Code, "religion" and "creed":

"Prohibitions against publications
14(1) No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or
displayed, on any lands or premises or in a newspaper, through a television or radio
broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or
publication or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls,
distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem,
article, statement or other representation:
(a) tending or likely to tend to deprive, abridge or otherwise restrict the
enjoyment by any person or class of persons, on the basis of a prohibited
ground, of any right to which that person or class of persons is entitled under
law; or
(b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise
affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a
prohibited ground."

Posted by: Dr Woof at March 7, 2006 12:59 PM

Can anyone read the following, abstracted directly from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, and not come to the conclusion that a violation of the law has occured? Note that "Prohibited Ground" mentioned in part b includes, as defined in the Code, "religion" and "creed":

"Prohibitions against publications
14(1) No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or
displayed, on any lands or premises or in a newspaper, through a television or radio
broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or
publication or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls,
distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem,
article, statement or other representation:
(a) tending or likely to tend to deprive, abridge or otherwise restrict the
enjoyment by any person or class of persons, on the basis of a prohibited
ground, of any right to which that person or class of persons is entitled under
law; or
(b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise
affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a
prohibited ground."

Posted by: Dr Woof at March 7, 2006 1:02 PM

Stolen from Lost Budgie's site
"What Do I Want from the University of Saskatchewan? Just the truth...

Publish the Mohammed Cartoons - or admit that the refusal to publish the cartoons is based upon fear of Muslim Violence rather than "respect" for religion.

Or, simply admit that the University of Saskatchewan respects Islam but not Christianity.

Just the truth. That's all."

Budgie gets it!
And it's simple!

Can the politically correct automatons (left)actually be this dumb?
Like sleepy editor Robbins volunteering to be the politically correct sacrificial lamb ,does he actually think that he can be seen as a heroic figure by intentionally misrepresenting the underlying point that Debris Trail, Virgil, Penny, Kate, Budgie and many others have so well put?
From Debris Trail
"The point is... Islamofascism is completely out of step with anything and everything we represent as a society, be it Left, Right, or Center. For some bizarre reason, only the right seems to have recognized this. Islamo-fascism is about murder, slavery, and barbarism... yet the idiots of the left draw BJ Jesus cartoon to mock Christians and refuse to run the Danish cartoons from hell.

There's an enormous storm brewing, with incredible repercussions internationally. Islamism is the next great challenge for human freedom. Canadians are already dying facing it... yet the idiots at The Sheaf draw BJ Jesus cartoons to mock Christians and Jews and RightWhingers."


These people (including the president of a major university) seem to have an impaired ability to understand this reality.

They see no double standard, just intolerant offended capitalist Christians, kicking up a fuss over some porn!!???!!!

They do not see "We will Not run the Danish cartoons because we respect religion" followed by a mouthful of pig semen for Jesus as (Aha ha ha)a lie.
They think of themselves as honourable, they are now convincing others that they are doing the right thing by recognizing a religous respectfulness for Christians that somehow (Ooops sorry) squeaked through their ever-vigilant editorial screening at the Sheaf.

It's sort of like a typographical error, with no intent to harm anyone.

Why are they argueing this strawman?

They fear a molatov cocktail from Muslims, and are so intellectually corupted and nuetered by their own Church of Political Correctness that they can not say it out loud, nor even admit it to themselves.
This would, in their mind be admitting that a third world culture is intolerant.
Only western capitalist culture is intolerant.
Everyone poor is noble.
This is anthema, unspoken bedrock for the PC left.
To argue against this is ego destroying to dipshits like MARG & Y!PH and the presidents of universities it seems.

The thinskinned Christians will be further vilified as freespeech killers by the disciples of the Church of PC nothingness!

The spinning has begun!

Posted by: richfisher at March 7, 2006 1:07 PM

Hey labby,
I'll give you the same "heads up" as I gave Jennifer:
The Sheaf is presently taking applications for editorial staff, including Editor in Chief, a position up until now, sadly lacking in judgement. I suggest that you go over, drop off an application and take back YOUR newspaper!

Posted by: Maranatha at March 7, 2006 1:13 PM

I agree with JR that laws against free speech should be repealed and not enforced, and that such examples as "Capitalist Piglet" should be exposed, rather than supressed by laws. It's important to recognize that where such laws exist in other parts of the world, criticism of government -- or Mosque -- is the first speech to be defined as "hate" or "incitement".

Images as vile as "Capitalist Piglet" are extant in North American underground comics, in Egyptian newspapers, in Canadian Libraries -- historical documents in the form of editorial cartoons from the Weimar Republic, say -- and on and on. There's (properly) no outrage in these cases because any reasonable limitations on free speech in free societies are based largely on the venue for such expressions.

In this case, the venue was a publicly-funded university's newspaper, the fees for which are deducted from all students. If Y!PH was living in his mother's basement cranking out comics on his Gestetner for some International Brotherhood of Socialist Workers Party, I don't think the inane little strip would be much of an issue to anyone.

Speaking personally, this cartoon's publication in a university newspaper rankles because it displays once again the hypocrisy of "Canadian values", which define buckling to violent theocrats and the abuse of those who turn the other cheek to be equivalent expressions of moral goodness.

But on the other hand I'm glad we live in a country where we can debate such things, and where Y!PH faces the moral outrage of his fellow citizens rather than prosecution by police and the government.

Posted by: EBD at March 7, 2006 1:18 PM

Trackbacks ain't working for me again, but at the homestead, this post is referenced in a post entitled "Fun In Colij."

Posted by: bob at March 7, 2006 1:19 PM

Bushman said: "I noticed that the CBC in SK has picked up the story: they quote an anonymous source as saying that the cartoonist is a student at STM, the Catholic college on the U of S: I have to say that I find this extremely unlikely. I suspect that this is a deliberate falsehood, meant to malign the victim (Christians) and similtaneously to partially rehabillitate the cartoonist (to make him look unbigotted)."

This is going to be an key point for the CBC, if they can assure themselves, and PROVE, that the student comes from the STM campus.

Jeremy, do you know if this is true?

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 7, 2006 1:48 PM

You fundmentalist crack me up. You get your knickers tied in a not about this, blast quotes from your holy book like it is the unchallengeable truth. Yet, you have the audacity to complain about muslim's infringing on freedom of speech/experession. C'mon now, look and mirror at your own hypocricy.
Nothing but nuts on this blog!

Posted by: Brick Wall at March 7, 2006 1:52 PM

It's probably a good thing that Jeff (Y!Ph) is out of town for the week.

Meh. The Sheaf made for great toilet paper on campus. Better stock up now.

Posted by: Willem at March 7, 2006 1:56 PM

Brick Wall, is that a handle to indicate your thought patters too?

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 2:12 PM

patterns...

dang!

...serves me right for being sarcastic.

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 2:13 PM

Brick Wall says: "audacity to complain about muslim's infringing on freedom of speech/experession."

People here have *not* been expressing much at all about Muslims, (not muslim's, as in showing possession) infringing on freedom of speech.

They have though, noted 'The Sheaf's' unwillingness to inform their readers about the cartoons about Muhammed, while gleefully publishing their vulgar representation of Christ, for no other reason than they apparently saw fit to do so.

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 7, 2006 2:13 PM

uhhh....Brick Wall, check again....

Most of the people here are strong proponents of freedom of speech.

As offensive as "piglet" is to christians, the real issue is that this same paper refused to publish the danish cartoons out of "respect for islam" and then turns around and publishes something like this.

All relgions should be subject to questions and even criticism, but none should be afforded "special" protecion.

Likewise, all people of faith should have the right to defend and express their views, citing religious texts if need be.

I am neither fundamentalist nor Christian, but I understand concepts like equality and hypocrisy; those are the real issues here.

Posted by: GM at March 7, 2006 2:16 PM

Yes, Jeff Macdonald (the talented artist who drew the cartoon) was actually the student representative for STM for two years! Amazing. I have heard rumours that he bribed people to vote for him with free alcohol, not sure if that is true or not though. He was also our vp operations and finance for a year, yeah for awesome representation!

Posted by: anon at March 7, 2006 2:36 PM

Uncle Buck:
"I don't personally see anything 'wrong' with the Sheaf printing the 'capitalist piglet' comic"

Supporting the right to publish kiddie porn/beastiality in public Canadian media? That's awfully brave of you, Buckeroo, but ultimately a dead end.

Personally, I'm with Dr. Woof that the Jesus pig blow toon without question: "exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground".

Community standards in this case have been breached like a New Orleans levy after Hurricane Katrina. Supporters of the Jesus toon are on moral ground about as high too...but you can live in your submerged Big-Easy graveyard. It makes your a braver man than I for choosing to live in muddy putrified waters.

Myself, I prefer the safer and cleaner ground of higher Community standards for the living.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 7, 2006 2:57 PM

I wonder how Jeff's parents and the faculty over at St. Thomas More College are feeling about now.
The indefensible has now become even more indefensible! Where's Jeff?
Jeff may have drawn the cartoon but the bigger issue is for the editorial and production staff over at the Sheaf to answer. Jeff doesn't work there and had no imput into the discussions about the Mohammad catoon. He, as far as we know, just submitted an abominable piece of work for consideration. It is the staff at the Sheaf who were in on the editorial discussion about the Mohammad cartoon and decided not to print it who need to answer the 5 W's.
I for one do not believe for a moment that it was a "mistake" that this cartoon made its way into the paper. Badges of (Dis)honor for some folks at the Sheaf I think. Planned and calculated to offend.

Posted by: Maranatha at March 7, 2006 2:59 PM

Well said Martin B

Posted by: Maranatha at March 7, 2006 3:01 PM

Brick Wall, the problem I have with socialists is that they always want someone else to pay for their rights. The U of S is a taxpayer funded institution. The Sheaf is funded by the U of S. Why should I be forced to fund garbage publications (or any publication for that matter)? The same argument goes for the CBC. The problem is that the persons who actually would read and appreciate the crap put out by the Sheaf et al are too few and too cheap to pay the full cost.

Free speach is one thing. Forcing people to pay for the publication of socialist trash is another. At least capitalist pigs pay their own way!

Posted by: taxpayer at March 7, 2006 3:05 PM

Posted by GM
"As offensive as "piglet" is to christians, the real issue is that this same paper refused to publish the danish cartoons out of "respect for islam" and then turns around and publishes something like this."

I'm really unsure as to where this "not publishing out of respect for Islam" is coming from. The editorial that explains why they didn't publish the Danish cartoons says nothing about that for the reason.

Posted by: kmm at March 7, 2006 3:09 PM

hey taxpayer the Sheaf isn't funded by the university. Its privately funded by the students.

Posted by: kmm at March 7, 2006 3:13 PM

Hi Kmm,

"I'm really unsure as to where this "not publishing out of respect for Islam" is coming from. The editorial that explains why they didn't publish the Danish cartoons says nothing about that for the reason."

So, what about this?

"the end, Muslims simply wish to be treated with respect – the same respect Jyllands-Posten showed Christianity in 2003 when it refused to publish a caricature of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, with the reason that it would lead to a public outcry."

(the last paragraph of the Sheaf article)

Posted by: GM at March 7, 2006 3:18 PM

I wonder what Eastern "creeps and bums" would have done?

Wonder what they are thinking right now.

Oh wait, thinking...uh, let me rephrase that, wonder what they are dreaming right now...

I know, let's publish one of an "English pig" being BJ'd by a Frenchman.

Then all hell would literally break loose in the MSM.

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 3:22 PM

Thank you Brick Wall for proving my point that
"The thinskinned Christians will be further vilified as freespeech killers by the disciples of the Church of PC nothingness!"

Just about a truck load short of a wall, but right on time with

"You fundmentalist crack me up. Yet, you have the audacity to complain about muslim's infringing on freedom of speech Nothing but nuts on this blog!"

374 comments and nobody, not one,... mentioned "Muslims infringing on freedom of speech".
Brick Wall your comment is Not reality, you are hearing voices or seeing comments, but reality has no relation to your bigotry.

Are you a student at the U of S ?

Posted by: richfisher at March 7, 2006 3:32 PM

Kmm, my understanding is that all students who attend U of S are charged a tariff as part of their fees that goes to fund the Sheaf. In other words, the student has no choice - the tariff is the same as a tax by the U of S that is directed to fund the Sheaf. Same as the federal government funding the CBC out of taxes.

The U of S receives millions of dollars of taxpayers dollars, directly and indirectly. The U of S does not, and cannot, survive without this taxpayer funding. I am not suggesting that Universities not receive public funding (although that is a separate, legitimate debate). I am suggesting that the U of S should not be funding the publication of socialist (ot other) garbage because many non socialists fund the publication of such garbage and that is wrong. It is wrong whether you view the Sheaf as funded by the U of S and taxpayers or by students through a mandatory tariff.

Posted by: taxpayer at March 7, 2006 3:33 PM

Just wondering if any of you name-calling, wall-building automatons has considering the invaluable public service Jeff has provided us?

First, it's caused us to discuss questions of respect, offense, religion, politics, economics, sex, and freedom that are fundamental right now.

I feel that the production of offensive material will only stop when people refuse to get emotionally involved with events that are no threat to any of their freedoms whatsoever. Nobody's freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. was threatened by the publication of any of the many worldwide cartoons that are being discussed at this very moment. None that I've seen (the danish newspaper, jesus on campus, jesus and muhammed kissing and hugging, capitalist piglet) have been incitements of violence against anyone.

Second, it's shown me personally that most of the people around me are fascinated by this whole phenomenon whether they agree with each other or not. That hasn't been my experience with what i've seen through media. I've witnessed many people's frantic emotional displays in response to an object of their devotion. Have you people ever really thought about god and what that word could possibly mean? If god is god, then no cartoon could possibly have any effect! A drawing of anyone's mother, or anyone living or dead, with baby pig semen (wow, another, ontogenetically absurd, depth to Jeff's subtle humour) dripping down their face will be offensive or inoffensive to some, funny or unfunny to some, and any permutation of them. As long as it's not threatening anyone's well-being or safety, let it go. That, of course, is my opinion.

Some consider this comic hate speech. The only way I can see anyone suffering is from unkempt emotions, which appear to be endemic, if not from humanity, then from the loudest contributors to this discussion, and possibly has something to do with why certain valid viewpoints aren't being voiced.

Posted by: pseud onym at March 7, 2006 3:50 PM

Hi GM,

Thanks for the reply. Your quote is from the article Kate has posted. Unfortunately that is not the article written by the editorial staff explaining their reasoning. The article that you are referring to is a respone from the Muslim Student Society. So it is essentially a private viewpoint and not necessarily the views of the sheaf. Heres a link to the correct article written by the editors.
http://www.thesheaf.com/features/features/trying_to_connect


and to Taxpayer,

Your completely correct that sheaf fees are paid as part of students fees to the university. That money is collected on behalf of the Sheaf. So the university would not have access to it. I believe the fees go directly to the sheaf. The Sheaf and the university finance department would jsut have some type of arrangement for the collecting of fees(I have no idea as to the specifics though).

As for it being wrong that students have to pay a mandatory fee for their newspaper. Thats a fair enough argument as well, but I guess that would be up to the students to decide democratically.
It has been discussed as a possibility before.

Posted by: kmm at March 7, 2006 3:52 PM

pseud onym, "If god is god, then no cartoon could possibly have any effect!"

Not so, God allowed for free will, in addition to His teachings.

People will do with that what they will...to ignore, or ridicule, or respect.

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 7, 2006 3:58 PM

With regard to a comment about us getting all emotional over a cartoon.

Well excuse me for being human and for a change standing up for what I know was wrong...

I'm tired of the "typical Canadian" way of rolling over and going back to sleep. This is why our country is in such a mess as it is.


Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 4:53 PM

Psued onym:
"Some consider this comic hate speech"

So if you drew your father or mother in Jesus's place in that cartoon and showed it to them and the rest of your family after it was published, would it win you a big heartfelt hug and a kiss? Maybe they'll all catch onto the thrilling subtlety of the dribbles you drew as necessary for demonstrating free speech and give you even more heartfelt love. Your family will be in awe of your maturity and grasp of important issues.

I'm sure your family wouldn't possibly see any valid reason why Christians feel attacked by "The Sheaf"'s Jesus blow pig toon because they'll be blinded by the love and respect shown in your toon about them.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 7, 2006 4:57 PM

Hmmm, funny, haven't heard, read any comments regarding the blasphemous cartoon depicting Jesus giving oral sex to a pig.

Don't Muslims consider Jesus a prophet? Where's the demonstrations?

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 5:05 PM

Buffalo Bean,
"Not so, God allowed for free will, in addition to His teachings.

People will do with that what they will...to ignore, or ridicule, or respect."

Sure they will. Ridicule or respect directed at god shouldn't have any positive or ill effect on god. If a being is truly supreme, it needs no aggrandizement, and no assault diminishes it. Any being that requires coddling and humouring and glorifying is not supreme, in my opinion. The idea of any supreme being having hurt feelings or getting angry over a cartoon in a university paper is absurd to me.

Ignorance, on the other hand, only kills symbols of the divine. It's happened before, it'll happen again, but our relationship to the divine is eternal. At any rate, Jesus, Muhammed, YHVH, Allah, Buddha, and Shiva are among many symbols of the divine which are alive and well in the world, and in no danger of being ignored.

Posted by: pseudo nym at March 7, 2006 5:07 PM

Tomax,
"I'm tired of the "typical Canadian" way of rolling over and going back to sleep. This is why our country is in such a mess as it is."

I don't know whom you're talking about. I'm pretty sure I'm not sleeping as I discuss this and think about it and listen to the debate. If you think Jesus needs standing up for, then you're thinking on a different level than I am. Please see my statements on the vulnerability of a supreme being. Your opinions on the "mess" we're in is exactly yours. Any of us could squat over a mirror and discover that we have an opinion too.

Martin B:
"So if you drew your father or mother in Jesus's place in that cartoon..." etc.

This argument gets trotted out too much. Please understand the difference between:

-the face of a worldwide 2000 year old religion that is regarded highly controversially

and

-a random person's mother or father.

If my mother or father was a worldwide public figure whose actions and very humanity were the subject of millenia of debate, it would be a different story.

My family supports the decisions I make because they love me. I can't tell you anything about my family's response to my painting sexualised pictures of them, because I never have and probably never will.

In this situation, the people who are frantically reacting are the ones dragging Jesus repeatedly through the mud. These cartoons are a threat to no one, and despite engendering useful debate, they also reveal to what extent people are willing to treat an insignificant item like this as a threat to their very survival.

Posted by: pseudo nym at March 7, 2006 5:34 PM

These cartoons are a threat to no one...

Heh, seems to me someone "fell on their sword" because of them.

There's leftists all over the place committing hari kari. Fun to watch.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 7, 2006 5:51 PM

pseudo.

Agreed, the Creator of the universe doesn't need my help, but...

I believe we are His hands and feet, and if not His mouth piece here on earth. Read that somewhere.

I also read somewhere for evil to prevail, good men must do nothing. While not in the Bible, I'm sure that phrase was inspired writing.

So yes, if you are not sure about the rolling back to sleep attiude Canadians have, I think that is part of the issue in not grasping what just transpired in the Sheaf.

Also knowing the difference between hatred/slander versus satire is handy in cases like these.

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 5:54 PM

At some point the Christian ideal of forgiveness needs to kick in here. The school has apologized. The paper has apologized and the author of the cartoon has apologized. I'm not sure what more we can ask, lacking a time machine.

I think that is enough, although I understand if others do not.

Posted by: Defense Guy at March 7, 2006 6:03 PM

Pseud onym said:
"...certain valid viewpoints aren't being voiced."

So who's stopping you from expressing all your valid viewpoints?

By the way, are you related to Anon?
Daniel

Posted by: Daniel at March 7, 2006 6:25 PM

Defense, maybe besides the apology, actually doing something in the future to prevent this, uh error, from happening again.

Read a previous post of mine regarding the radio/newspaper interveiw with one of the editors.

Sure doesn't sound sorry, just more or less pee'd off they got caught, nobling falling on his sword over this...give me a break.

As I said before, I never heard the word WRONG. Just "Mistake".

Akin to the difference in saying: "I made a mistake filling out my T4" versus "I was wrong in filling out my T4".

One denotes a clerical error, misjudgement, or whoops, the other denotes a moral aspect to the motive.

And exactly that is what the feed we were given, the editor said it was an "editorial oversight", a mistake.

So while I forgive, are we to just roll over and go back to sleep for the next one to pop up?

Forgiveness doesn't include ignorance.

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 6:27 PM

"Sure doesn't sound sorry, just more or less pee'd off they got caught, nobling falling on his sword over this...give me a break."

pee'd off they got caught? If they were trying to avoid getting "caught" I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have published the cartoon in a newspaper available to the public.

Posted by: jared at March 7, 2006 6:38 PM

"Ridicule or respect directed at god shouldn't have any positive or ill effect on god." Pseudo (means false) nym

Ex:20:7: Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

It seems that God, in the third commandment, was concerned enough to include this as one of the ten. God's name includes all that he is, all His attributes etc. It seems to me that if you are going to go out of your way to slander and blaspheme His name by drawing this image of His Son Jesus, I could see how He might take offence and not hold you guiltless. If someone drew this picture using my son instead of Jesus doing fellacio on the pig, you can be sure that I wouldn't hold Him guiltless!
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 7, 2006 6:40 PM

Tomax

Be assured that this will not be the last time you will be insulted in your life. Nor will this be the last time that that Christianity will be. But remember:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

and even more importantly:

And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us.

If we cannot forgive for this, then we should never expect forgiveness when we fall short of the ideal.

Posted by: Defense Guy at March 7, 2006 6:48 PM

I did not take the time to read all of the posts that were made because the first half is extremely one sided, so I assumed that the secound was much of the same.

Why is this cartoon offensive?

The cartoon is showing the Christianity and Capitalism/consumerism go hand in hand. How is that not true? Has anyone noticed that Xmas is more about a fat guy wearing red than christ's birth? What about easter? A rabbit that lays eggs.

I think Christianity has turned became a thing of social status. I find this mind blowing because Jesus preached about doing the exact opposite of this.

I doubt I'll check this web site again, but if anyone wants a discussion please feel free to email me.

Posted by: chad at March 7, 2006 7:05 PM

jared: as in getting caught, do you think for a moment they might not have been ready or expecting such a backlash over this, let alone the President of the University on their case?

defence: so in doing forgiveness, we are to turn over and go back to sleep right?

As for being insulted, well to the Glory of God, I was one of the few people on a military base who became a Christian back in the late 70's, when it wasn't "cool" to be born again.

Scorned and told I lost my marbles...confined to printing Routine Orders in the basement. All my drinking buddies, err co-workers, made wide berths around my desk, heck even the RC priest motored past my office at base HQ, whereas he used to stop and chat with me.

But Psalm91, ...He will honour me, I was made Assistant Base Warrant Officer and in charge of quite a few people before I got out.

Pretty good for someone written off as a loonie or so this is the guy who has "seen the light" as I got branded by Captain MP(Military Police) and the BWO - the two guys you most feared in the forces of getting upset.

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 7:05 PM

chad, nothing like a drive by posting eh...

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 7:08 PM

You people are still talking about this? Snoooore.

Posted by: dub at March 7, 2006 7:12 PM

Pseudo nym,

When you awaken from the blue smoke induced semi-comatose state you're in you might get the point of my previous comments.

It's about offending people...offending REAL PEOPLE for no good reason. You wouldn't hurt family members by portraying your folks in a toon performing an obscenely perverse sex act. Is that because you see them as real people and have no trouble relating that the toon would be hurtful to real people? I'd bet the subtle "dribbles" you like so much in the Jesus cartoon would make your stomach sick if the toon character was someone close that you love and respect. Would you see that as a senseless and hateful attack?

Have you made the connection yet? You see, Jesus is someone real...someone that real people who are Christians deeply love. He is the father of Christianity...the head of their spiritual family.

You obviously have no recognition that Christians are real people based on the content of your comments. Therefore lampooning Christians with an obscene toon containing absolutely no meaningful or insightful commentary is of no consequence to you except as a superficial joke.

That makes you part of a group that are purposefully ignorant of a large population of real people...which in turn makes it easier to spread intolerance and hate.

Hope you wake up someday.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 7, 2006 7:13 PM

Tomax,

I noticed that you continually are attacking Leftist and I am extremely perplexed as to why that is in anyway relevant to the cartoon.

Government has no place in religion as religion has no place in government. Which is why freedom of speech is a law.

I find your comments to be very much full of propaganda as they are not based on any facts.

Posted by: Chad at March 7, 2006 7:27 PM

old hoss:
"Heh, seems to me someone "fell on their sword" because of them.

There's leftists all over the place committing hari kari. Fun to watch."

The editor's resignation was his own decision, and had nothing to do with the jesus cartoon. He cites the sheaf's decision not to print the muhammed cartoons as his reason.

tomax:
"I believe we are His hands and feet, and if not His mouth piece here on earth. Read that somewhere."

Oh yeah. I've read all sorts of things myself. Is Jeff "His hands and feet, and if not His mouth piece," then, or whom did you mean by "we?"

Daniel,
"So who's stopping you from expressing all your valid viewpoints?"

If anybody is doing it, I am. That was my point, what I said about the "unkempt emotions."

"By the way, are you related to Anon?"

As much as I am to you.

Maranatha:
"Pseudo (means false) nym"

yeah, false name. My dad's not Mr. Onym. Whether or not Maranatha is your real name, it's a nice one.

"if you are going to go out of your way to slander and blaspheme His name by drawing this image of His Son Jesus, I could see how He might take offence and not hold you guiltless."

That would be "the LORD"'s prerogative, I suppose. Why don't we let that stay as a matter between Jeff and "the LORD?"

"If someone drew this picture using my son instead of Jesus doing fellacio on the pig, you can be sure that I wouldn't hold Him guiltless!"

Well, you aren't "the LORD," are you? How's 'bout we don't pretend to know "His" will (or gender) and let "Him" take care of "Him"self?

Posted by: pseudo nym at March 7, 2006 7:30 PM

Chad: The reason our country is so screwed up and fallen for the once proud and mighty status we used to have is because of....

wait for it...

LEFTIST thinking.

Now what is Leftist thinking? Well of course I don't know because I'm a, uh, RIGHTIST. But I do know doublespeak when I hear it, and I do know the Liberal government has corrupted our nation possibly beyond repair, all the way down to municipal elections.

The cartoon was, hmm, if not Leftist, then whatist?

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 7:46 PM

And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us.

If we cannot forgive for this, then we should never expect forgiveness when we fall short of the ideal.

Forgiveness is given upon repentance. Repentance is having a change of mind, a turning away from the offending behaviour.

Luke 17:3, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."


Posted by: ol hoss at March 7, 2006 7:47 PM

Martin,
"would make your stomach sick if the toon character was someone close that you love and respect."

Yeah, but as I said, it's not going to happen unless you do it right now to prove a point. It would be a mean-spirited, act intended -only- to offend, and my response to it would be my responsibility, and not yours for drawing the cartoon. In any case, as long as my family member or friend was not threatened, (which is true of Jesus and all Christians), I expect the world would move on (which i'm about ready to do, folks). I stand firm that no one is responsible for anyone else's emotional state.

"You see, Jesus is someone real. He is the father of Christianity...the head of their spiritual family."

Quite a few of my acquaintances are Christian, I'm aware of common Christian beliefs, and Christians' response to this situation varies.

"obscene toon containing absolutely no meaningful or insightful commentary"

That's your opinion. Many people find meaningful and/or insightful commentary.

"is of no consequence to you except as a superficial joke."

Not superficial at all. I think Jeff's comic cuts deep into fundamental questions, as is evidenced by this very discussion. I'd say that someone who sees this cartoon as intended only to shock has the superficial view.

"That makes you part of a group that are purposefully ignorant of a large population of real people...which in turn makes it easier to spread intolerance and hate."

As I've said, I know and love many Christians. I could be considered a Christian by some, but am ambivalent about the canon, such as the writings of St. Paul, and some parts of the Old Testament. Your characterisation of me as "purposefully ignorant" of a subject that I've spent a lot of time with is about as jumped to as any conclusion I've seen you reach, Martin.

"Hope you wake up someday."

I hope you someday don't need to see other people as "comatose" to apprehend their perspective.

Posted by: pseud onym at March 7, 2006 7:52 PM

psudeo...I believe we all should look at who is being referring to quitting. The editor while was going to quit over the Muslim ones, suddenly says it was over the "foul up".

Oh and it wasn't anybody's intention to have a (public) reaction over it.

Rightttttttttttt.......

---------------------------------

"The comic was actually laid out and went to print as a result of an editorial oversight and a mistake," production manager Liam Richards said Monday. "It was not our intention to have a (public) reaction to it."

The cartoon ran a week after the student-funded newspaper ran a four-page spread discussing the controversial Danish cartoons picturing the Prophet Muhammad, which have incited rioting and violence by Muslim extremists around the globe.

Then-editor-in-chief Will Robbins wrote an editorial telling readers the Sheaf would not publish the cartoons, which have offended so many.

Robbins tendered his resignation to the paper's board Sunday.

"In order for us to rectify this foul-up, accidental though it may be, especially given the egregious nature of the offence given to a large section of our campus community . . . someone needed to fall on their sword," Robbins wrote in his resignation letter, obtained by The StarPhoenix.

A columnist has also resigned because of the cartoon and the news editor previously resigned because the paper refused to print the Danish cartoons.

Posted by: tomax at March 7, 2006 7:52 PM

Tomax

The cartoon was anti-christian,

At least that is what I got out of it.

And once again I'll bring up the previous implied statement of separation of the church and state. Which is also what I got out of the cartoon.

Posted by: Chad at March 7, 2006 7:55 PM

The editor's resignation was his own decision, and had nothing to do with the jesus cartoon. He cites the sheaf's decision not to print the muhammed cartoons as his reason.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=99d5b011-144a-4d32-8f18-c0f46174b468&k=98990

Robbins tendered his resignation to the paper's board Sunday.

"In order for us to rectify this foul-up, accidental though it may be, especially given the egregious nature of the offence given to a large section of our campus community . . . someone needed to fall on their sword," Robbins wrote in his resignation letter, obtained by The StarPhoenix.

A columnist has also resigned because of the cartoon...

Posted by: ol hoss at March 7, 2006 7:56 PM

dream world:

lighten up.

-dm

Posted by: dannie at March 7, 2006 8:34 PM

"Chad: The reason our country is so screwed up and fallen for the once proud and mighty status we used to have is because of....
wait for it...
LEFTIST thinking.
Now what is Leftist thinking? Well of course I don't know because I'm a, uh, RIGHTIST. But I do know doublespeak when I hear it, and I do know the Liberal government has corrupted our nation possibly beyond repair, all the way down to municipal elections.
The cartoon was, hmm, if not Leftist, then whatist?"

The thing that scares me most in this debate is the irrational attacks. Even if the Sheaf publishing the cartoon was irrational that gives you no right to turn around and do that same others, namely the left(i'm still not sure what definition you made up for this group tomax).

PS. the liberals are considered centrist in canada politics

Posted by: kmm at March 7, 2006 8:35 PM

Chad:
You wrote:

"The cartoon is showing the Christianity and Capitalism/consumerism go hand in hand."

Actually, it seemed to be showing Christianity and Capitalism/Consumerism going dick in mouth. If he had wanted to convey "hand in hand", he could have drawn them holding hands. The point (innane though it is) would have been made, and no one would have been offended by the vulgarity of it. Jesus did not need to be made out to be a homosexual with zoophilic tendencies. And Christians need not be told that we are somehow the immature ones for being offended at an image of our Lord performing fellatio on a pig.

You went on:
"How is that not true? Has anyone noticed that Xmas is more about a fat guy wearing red than christ's birth? What about easter? A rabbit that lays eggs."

As a pastor I can tell you that there is no group who is more critical of this trend than Christians. Have you not noticed all of the 'keep the Christ in Christmas' stuff? Have you not noticed that it is non religious people who continually want 'holiday trees' and the non specific 'happy holidays' greetings rather than 'merry Christmas'? Have you not seen that non religious people are the ones who insist upon the consumerist non-Christian holiday of sentimentality, greed and gluttony that Christmas has become?? I say non religious, because in my experience, non Christian religious people (eg Muslims, Jews, Hindus) have no problem with Christmas. The ones who have the problem are those of 'Christian Stock' who put on airs of sophisticated athiesm, or groovy non sprecific spirituality which means anything, and nothing. Thye claim to be above Christianity, but really they are obcessed with it, blaming it for all of society's ills, for every tragedy and travesty, and no doubt for their acne as well. To blame Christianity for the bastardization of Christmas is laughable!! If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you 'stick it to the man' by letting your employer know that you are available to work on December 24th and 25th. And don't buy anybody any presents. Don't accept any either. Don't visit family. Refuse that Christmas bonus. And might I suggest a protest fast on the 25th. For myself, I'll do what I always do on Christmas. Preach the Word, administer Holy Communion, and later that day, break my Advent fast as I feast with my family in celebration of the Nativity of my Lord.

You continued:
"I think Christianity has turned became a thing of social status. I find this mind blowing because Jesus preached about doing the exact opposite of this."

I would find this mind blowing too, if it were true. Perhaps it was once, but the '70's are a long time ago. I wear my clerical collar in public quite a lot. I can relate well to the goths, because I get as many hostile stares. (and they seem to like to dress in black as much as I do). Think about it man!!! Stockwell Day was vilified for his Christian beliefs (remember the 'How Scary' McLeans cover?). Christians are regularily ridiculed for their beliefs. If we were looking for worldly status, we would be trying out for Canadian Idol, not living as Christians.

I was offended by the cartoon, and I don't buy the argument that I am missing some deeper meaning. To me it is a sophmoric neo marxist interpretation of religion and its relationship to capitalism which was already past its expiry date some 20 years ago, and is only currently alive in the never never land of tenured political science chairs occupied by professors who are still a little miffed that revolution they boldly predicted some 40 years ago never came to pass. And how their young sheep bleat!!

Posted by: Karl at March 7, 2006 8:45 PM

defence: so in doing forgiveness, we are to turn over and go back to sleep right?

This is NOT what I said. If you look back to my original post, I also clearly said that I understood if others could not forgive. Now, what is it that you want? What is the point at which you would feel this has come to a satisfactory conclusion?


ol hoss

Forgiveness is given upon repentance. Repentance is having a change of mind, a turning away from the offending behaviour.

Luke 17:3, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."

Indeed and in my original comment (today), I stated that apologies had been issued by all those involved. So I would ask you the same question, what will you accept as proper repentance?

What bothers me, a little, is that you both know the words, but when confronted with an opportunity to apply them, you punt. Why is that?

Posted by: Defense Guy at March 7, 2006 8:51 PM

Poignant discourse.
These marxist, pseudo "liberal" fascists need to have their heads examined.

Posted by: boggins at March 7, 2006 8:51 PM

Still a debate going on here? Why? The Sheaf has apologized in the best way that they can right now. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to realize that it is a weekly newspaper, so should probably just wait until the next issue for the full, formal, apology. If you don't believe the apology, then stop, take a breath, and try to open up your mind for a second and think rationally. Why the hell would the Sheaf even WANT to bring this to themselves?

Obviously the Sheaf has admitted that what they did is wrong. Good, because it was wrong. What the issue seems to be now is whether an apology is enough. John Gormley thinks:

"Sorry, isn’t enough. An institution that MUST know the limits of debate and free speech deserves an entirely new group of students running the Sheaf."

John Gormley should do a little more research.
His solution to the problem was solved before he even thought about it.

Anyone read the Sheaf prior to this issue? The deadline (Feb 8) has passed for accepting applications for next year's editoral positions. And guess what!? None of the present editors are even coming back next year anyways!

Cut off funding? Close the paper down? That doesn't solve anything, but contradicts those who suggest such extreme measures. I may disagree with what Gormley has to say, but I don't go calling in threats to 650 CKOM. It's a university newspaper. Where else are you going to find alternative media that actually has guts to say what they want?

I don't support the cartoon, but I support student journalism. How else are journalists ever going to break into the field? People make mistakes, and in this case... very large mistakes. People also learn from mistakes.

Posted by: Andrew at March 7, 2006 8:59 PM

"These marxist, pseudo "liberal" fascists need to have their heads examined."
What the heck are you talking about?!?! How are you mixing marxists and liberals and fascists into one??? do you know what any of those mean???? you suck more than i can comprehend. why don't you guys stop your circle jerk, and think for a bit. almost none of you have said anything reasonable or constructive, and are the biggest hypocrites i have ever seen!!! how are you offended if you aren't even christian?! and if you think you are, HOW?!?!? you're insane!!!!

YOU are the religious nutcases that give religion a bad name. you achieve nothing here other than being the larges source of entertainment in all of your equally pathetic lives which are spent doing nothing other than toxically reassuring each other that someday things will suck a bit less for you because you will die and you will not even have to worry about your obnoxious little beliefs that someone cares about you and will let you sit on his cloud castle for the rest of eternity. my goodness you are pitiful!

Posted by: you are idiots at March 7, 2006 9:40 PM

A fine christian prayer applys to this:

rub-a-dub-dub thanks for the grub.
Amen.

Awesome CARTOON...

Posted by: Ethan Caine at March 7, 2006 10:44 PM

Editorial mistake? Maybe.
I'm more inclined to believe that this was an experiment testing religious tolerance gone wrong. I think the result wasn't quite what they expected when they made the editorial mistake.

Posted by: Hypothersize at March 7, 2006 10:52 PM

So I would ask you the same question, what will you accept as proper repentance?

A turning away from that kind of behaviour. An apology is just words.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 7, 2006 11:13 PM

Then he said, "I am the LORD your God, and I cure your diseases. If you obey me by doing right and by following my laws and teachings, I won't punish you with the diseases I sent on the Egyptians." - Exodus 15:26

"Egyptian" Plagues in Canada:

1. West NILE virus (The Nile a river in Egypt)
2. SARS - (Toronto) - Egyptian plague of Boils.
3. Mad Cow Disease - Egyptian cattle died.
4. Cryptosporidium in water supply (I.E. North Battleford - Egyptian Water Contaminated.

I hope the staff of "The Sheaf" aren't first born children. All the firstborn died...

Go ahead, just keep pushing it...


Posted by: Offence NOT Taken at March 7, 2006 11:14 PM

A turning away from that kind of behaviour. An apology is just words.

Go forth and sin no more, sure. But then, that is the burdon of the sinner. The burdon of the witness of the sin is not to follow them around making sure they are true to their word.

Once they have apologized, this should be enough to show an act of repentance. Or we could stand around and call em liars. Which might be fun for a while.

I'm not saying you have to, just that you should consider it.

Posted by: Defense Guy at March 8, 2006 12:04 AM

There is no way this cartoon was published because of a mistake. A paper is laid out and every square inch is checked. The first few copies printed are usually garbage for a variety of reasons, and checked for errors. This cartoon could have been pulled at any time. Did the author of the cartoon submit it, expecting a letter of rejection aka the muslim ones. Was he surprised it made it to press. This will have far reaching effects on a lot of people. A resume stating one had attended the UofS, worked on the sheath, might just be reason for rejection. Donations will fall off. As a publisher of a weekly paper, years ago, I automatically threw out resumes from a certain U in the States, after I received three from applicants from this U, stating they had all graduated at the top of their class. Same class, same profs, same year etc. Seemed like a form resume, with names changed. May have passed up some good reporters, but I don't think so. If any of those involved ever run for office, this will come back to bite them. As I stated before, muslims cut off heads, christians cut off money and potential jobs.

Posted by: maryT at March 8, 2006 12:18 AM

This has been an interesting event. In the end I think that Jeff has accomplished part of what he set out to accomplish. There has been a dialogue and an exchange of ideas in an open forum after what seems to be an intentional provocation and offence.
In a twisted sort of way persecution is always a good thing for the Church of the living God. Although I for one am not ready to say "thank you" to Jeff or the Sheaf, I will say that I forgive you and accept your apologies believing they are sincere.
Historically, as the Church has been persecuted, she has flourished and grown. Under the persecution of Saul, who later became the apostle Paul, the Church was scattered and began to grow in every place that the believers went.
The Church, for many years has been the great sleeping giant. I believe that as she endures persecution in these last days, she will awake from her slumber and arise in glory to take her rightful place, readying herself for the coming bridegroom, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ.
It is during times of persecution that believers put away their differences and come together to face the foe, realizing that their greatest strength is in the unity that is found in their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
It has been a great discussion. It may not change the events which will soon unfold but I think that a point has been made and there is a better understanding of one another. It is not so important that unbelievers honor the Lord Jesus, that is rather the duty of every believer. However where extreme cases of offence occur,it may be up to the courts and tribunals of the land to decide the limits of dishonor that can be heaped upon any people and apply appropriate remedies where warranted.
Let's not forget the brave men and women in Afghanastan who stand as gate keepers so that we might be free to have this discussion.
God keep our land, glorious and free. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Maranatha

P.S. Thanks Karl, Pastor Wally and others for "keeping the faith"

Thanks Kate for once again hosting a lively, interesting and I believe productive discussion

Posted by: Maranatha at March 8, 2006 12:35 AM

Once they have apologized, this should be enough to show an act of repentance.

I didn't see Y!ph apologizing for anything other than some undefined "mistake".

Posted by: ol hoss at March 8, 2006 12:51 AM

Finally...

"We, the Sheaf Publishing Society Board of Directors, have voted to accept Will Robbins' letter of resignation. While the Board is of the view that the "Capitalist Piglet" comic is not consistent with the Sheaf's objectives (as outlined in its constitution) nor its previous editorial policy, we wish to make clear that our acceptance of his resignation was based primarily on his failure to carry out his duties diligently."

The Board of Directors.

http://www.thesheaf.com/

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 1:34 AM

The Sheaf was wrong, it appologized. Its managing editor resigned.

For the love of GOD (no pun intended... ps. i'm atheist) stop bombarding us with your fanatical, ignorant, boarderline cultish christian bullshit.

Have faith in whatever floats your boat but please stop trying to shove your useless jargin down our throats. "Exodus 15:26" blah blah blah Egypt blah blah WHO GIVES A FUCK. examine your own lives before criticizing others'.

And to all you who believe students are mostly small-minded, leftist children who don't see the world as it really is, you're the reason this world is as terrible as it is.

Posted by: sympathy for the martyr at March 8, 2006 1:37 AM

gee...who pee'd in your cerial this morning?

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 1:47 AM

Another Sheaf member, Caitlin, calls it quits.

http://thepsychward.blogspot.com/2006/03/so-after-some-thought-ive-decided-im.html

So, after some thought, I've decided I'm not going to be writing my column for the Sheaf anymore after the "Capitalist Piglet" cartoon of March 2. I'll keep posting it to my celibate blog, but I don't feel comfortable being part of a publication that would denigrate something so intrinsically a part of who and what I am in such a pointless, senseless way.

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 2:00 AM

A somewhat final thought...

You'll have to excuse me for being confused on who's saying what over the "editorial oversight" done by the Sheaf. Let me see if I got this drama straight in my head...

1. The Wayward Reporter, resigned earlier on the principle regarding of not publishing the Danish cartoons. [Ok, fine]

2. Another writer, Caitlin, resigns because of the Capitalist Pig cartoon, not so much on the Danish cartoons. [Ok, fine]

2. The editor, Will Robbins, resigns because "this cartoon’s (Capitalist Pig) inclusion was not a decision made by our editorial staff in order to test free speech boundaries, nor to deride religious sentiment. Its inclusion was, in its entirety, a mistake".
[I think, ok fine]

3. Derek Turner, also a Sheaf board member, said he was aware of the cartoon before it was published and understood the cartoonists, identified in the newspaper as MARQ and Y!PH, intended to make a point about the paper's decision not to publish the controversial Muhammad cartoons.
[What point, that you can publish soft porn in the guise of freedom of speech while nailing two faiths in the Cartoon section rather than in the Editorial section?]

4. Production manager Liam Richards says "we should be allowed to push the envelope", and then goes on to say "the comic was actually laid out and went to print as a result of an editorial oversight and a mistake". Ok, but he goes on to say: "it was not our intention to have a (public) reaction to it. [Wait, how would you have one if it wasn't suppose to be in print to start with?]

5. The staff of the Sheaf (in Mr. Robbins words) lost confidence in him: "Given that they can see no useful role for me to play in their own attempts to rectify this situation, I am forced, unwillingly, to resign after all."
[Not sure what attempts were being made, so guess have to wait till Thursday when an explanation is published.]

4. The Board of the Sheaf accepts Mr. Robbins resignation "based primarily on his failure to carry out his duties diligently."
[Wait wasn't he doing a noble thing, like falling on his sword?]

5. The President of the UofSask had no idea of this happening till I called last week and he issues a statement asking for the Sheaf to apologize.
[Seeing he's in line for the SCC - supreme court of canada, this is kinda egg on his face, n'est pas?]

6. The Sheaf apologizes under the guise of it being a mistake.
[Who's?]

7. Liberal slanted bloggers are saying the Sheaf has every right to publish the cartoon, [So why is a left slanting paper like the Sheaf then calling it a mistake?]

8. Finally, freedom of speech aside, how does one get off comparing professionally done satirical Danish cartoons to amateurish porno toilet stall cavemen drawings done by the "all star duo" in the Sheaf?

9. I guess I could also say, funny how convictions change from one week to the next at the Sheaf. No to Muslim, Yes to Christian/Jewish.

10. And no, it wouldn't be proper to publish either of them.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 3:42 AM

dang, numbering system screwed up on my Cray 9000...

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 3:44 AM

I dunno what's so upsetting. It's just a comic. It's not really that funny but it still is just a comic.

You know what, I find the bible offensive. It removes all reason and thought from your daily lives. If that isn't more harmful than a retarded jesus bashing comic I don't know what is.

Get a grip people, there are bigger things to worry about. Like say keeping tabs on Harper. I mean god bless he ain't french or "liberal" but all we need is some nutjob in office declaring war on the US then sending troops to some godforsakenhardtopronounce country to "fight for our freedom" ...

oh... and Vote for Pedro!

Posted by: tomstdenis at March 8, 2006 5:48 AM

Hi tomstdenis, I find stupidity annoying, and you and this cartoon rankle.
p.s.:Have a nice day.

Posted by: Bushman at March 8, 2006 8:58 AM

Have faith in whatever floats your boat but please stop trying to shove your useless jargin down our throats. "Exodus 15:26" blah blah blah Egypt blah blah WHO GIVES A FUCK. examine your own lives before criticizing others'.

Now there is some of that Canadian tolerance we hear so much about. Kudos sir, kudos.

Posted by: Defense Guy at March 8, 2006 9:49 AM

There is a big difference between having a right to do something and having the judgement to deicide whether to do it.

This paper had the right to publish the Danish cartoon, but didn't.

This paper had the right to publish the piglet cartoon, and did.

"Piglet" was in bad taste, poorly drawn, and not very funny, but they had a right to publish it, though it was, very clearly, a stupid decision.

This isn't a rights issue. It's an issue of poor judgement, poor taste, and hypocrisy.

But since those responsible for publishing this cartoon have recognized their poor judgement and resigned. That really should be the end of it.

Posted by: GM at March 8, 2006 10:37 AM

tomstdenis
"I find the bible offensive. It removes all reason and thought from your daily lives."

Just the opposite, it is one of the few books worth reading. As for "removing all reason and thougt"... nothing could be further from the truth. If I need wisdom I can read the wisest man that ever lived. Solomon wrote three books, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (a love story). If I need inspiration or comfort I might read King David, Solomons father, who wrote the Psalms. Beginnings go to Genesis. For the basis of our law today, go to the first five books of the bible, the books of Moses. To learn about history, check out Kings and Chronicles. To inquire about the future there are many prophets represented as well as the greatest prophet of all, Jesus, the son of God. If I want to know how to live my life, to be a good neighbor, father or husband or wife, I can find it all in the many books written by the disciples of Jesus. The four Gospels reveal Jesus, the son of man, the son of God. Revelations, the coming King.
The Bible inspires and gives meaning and direction to life. Rather than temoving reason and thought this library of books gives us a firm foundation for both.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 8, 2006 11:00 AM

Pseudo numb:
"As I've said, I know and love many Christians. I could be considered a Christian by some"

They must be as comatose as you to consider you a follower of Christ after your comments. Do you imagine yourself a Christian? If so, does Jesus get a say on that? It would really be nice to call you a bright light, Pseudo, but you keep missing the obvious (or willfully ignoring?).

Your imagined obtuse justifications for the Jesus blow toon does nothing but show a lack of sensitivity to Christians. Period. When I look at the Jesus toon the only obvious message communicated is hate. Humor me, say your dad held a job in our society to put food on the table for the wife and kids, would it make sense for someone to call him a capitalist pig in front of thousands of others? Isn't there a far more obvious and important reason for your dad's paycheque? Does that make you the piglet then? Isn't imagining hateful propaganda easy and fun?

Insensitivity by the media towards identifiable groups makes it easier to spread intolerance and hate. That insensitivity confirms either ignorance or worse, a willful agenda of those that support acts like the Jesus toon. An agenda that strengthens negative perceptions that marginalize people, which in turn helps wind history down the road toward injustice.

I'm still hopeful you'll wake up and get it someday but probably not today.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 8, 2006 11:16 AM

Oddly, leftists create their own bait and then take it.

It would be interesting to compile every troll comment posted here and then have the work professionally analyzed. Besides the somewhat forgivable grammer and spelling errors commited, there's not a thread of logic to be found, let alone factual basis for thought. Which begs the question, what use is the university in the first place?

I think that's what Conservatives fear most of all, we're sharing our country with the clinically insane.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at March 8, 2006 11:17 AM

tomstdenis refers to a "godforsakenhardtopronounce place": I wonder if he meant Saskatchewan? Or, maybe he meant Saskatchewanistan, an oppressive new country created created by the socialists?

Posted by: Bushman at March 8, 2006 11:30 AM

How many people hadn't even seen or heard of the comic until Peter Mackinnon's mass email?

I'm not impressed with the sheaf, but I'm even less impressed with the University's President's hasty apology. I only found out about Capitalist Piglet AFTER I received his mass email, same with quite a few of my friends. Probably the same for a lot of people.

So bravo, Peter Mackinnon, instead of managing to cover your ass, YOU ADVERTISED THE COMIC to the rest of the university.

Something that might have gone largely unnoticed has resulted in heavy damage to the reputation of the university and the USSU, which aren't even in control of the Sheaf.

Not saying that the sheaf's actions should have been overlooked, but we might as well expect a tuition increase next year based on the fact that the university's funding will suffer one way or another after all this bad publicity.

In the end, who's really paying for it? The students. Thanks again, Peter.

Posted by: Bunny at March 8, 2006 12:30 PM

Bunny...while Pres MacKinnon's letter is akin to a "tisk tisk" item, what else was he to do?

Basically the guy was in damage control mode.

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 12:42 PM

No offense taken:
""Egyptian" Plagues in Canada:"

Come on. Human history is riddled with disease. You can't just pull a couple of news stories out of your hat and compare Canada to the biblical Egyptian slave-owners. What about the bubonic plageue and the influenza epidemic? hurricanes and typhoons and volcanoes and tsunamis? MS, cancer, AIDS, Crohn's, celiac disease? Jeez. I'm firstborn. I'll let you know in the next life how I died.

tomax:
"gee...who pee'd in your cerial this morning?"

thanks for your thought-provoking contribution. I'll have you know it's spelled "serial."

Martin B:
"Pseudo numb:

Ah, the name-calling high ground I've come to expect.

"Do you imagine yourself a Christian? If so, does Jesus get a say on that?"

How exactly would he? He died, and, as is necessary for your woldview, was resurrected and taken up to heaven a long time ago. I guess I could ask him through prayer. And, no, I don't imagine myself a Christian, even though I hold Jesus's words and life in high regard.

"It would really be nice to call you a bright light, Pseudo, but you keep missing the obvious (or willfully ignoring?)."

Yeah, you do like to say that.

"Your imagined obtuse justifications for the Jesus blow toon does nothing but show a lack of sensitivity to Christians. Period. When I look at the Jesus toon the only obvious message communicated is hate."

So you're only capable of seeing one meaning, and other people see more than that. You're a fundamentalist, big deal. There seem to be more pathologically literal-minded people reducing the bible, and everything else, into a mere narrative, and not the symbolically rich, individually interpretive, LIVING experience that the bible, and everything else, IS. Your simplemindedness is yours alone. If you've never heard of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, or Carl Gustav Jung, look into them, as well as the whole fields of anthropology and semiotics. All that I've just mentioned focuses on the similarities between different myths, religious texts and traditions, rather than the differences, which is all appear to be capable of seeing.

"Humor me, say your dad held a job in our society to put food on the table for the wife and kids, would it make sense for someone to call him a capitalist pig in front of thousands of others?"

If my dad was as public a figure as he'd need to be in order for thousands to pay attention, he'd be used to it and would let it go. Public figures are insulted every day. Take a look at the news-stand."

"Isn't imagining hateful propaganda easy and fun?"

"You've made that abundantly clear, considering how many times you've imagined hateful propaganda about my family.

"Insensitivity by the media towards identifiable groups makes it easier to spread intolerance and hate. That insensitivity confirms either ignorance or worse, a willful agenda of those that support acts like the Jesus toon. An agenda that strengthens negative perceptions that marginalize people, which in turn helps wind history down the road toward injustice."

Show me a systemic example of intolerance and hate toward Christians in our culture (besides knee-jerk reactionism in teenagers and on campus, which we all know only affects teenagers and students), and you'll have made a point. Until then, I'll continue to think that Christians are doing OK as far as receiving intolerance and hate goes. I have no problem standing up for someone who is truly being threatened. Christians, in this situation, don't qualify. None of them has suffered any threat to their freedoms as a result of this, as I've repeatedly said.

"I'm still hopeful you'll wake up and get it someday but probably not today."

That means as much as "get a life you dummy." What are you, 9 years old?

irwin daisy:
"professionally analyzed. Besides the somewhat forgivable grammer and spelling errors commited,"

I disagree. The comision of grammer and spelling erros is disforgivible.

"there's not a thread of logic to be found, let alone factual basis for thought. Which begs the question, what use is the university in the first place?"

Same as church. CONDITIONING.

"I think that's what Conservatives fear most of all, we're sharing our country with the clinically insane."

Wow. I'm sharing a country with people who believe a large chunk of the world is clinically insane.

Bushman:

"tomstdenis refers to a "godforsakenhardtopronounce place": I wonder if he meant Saskatchewan? Or, maybe he meant Saskatchewanistan, an oppressive new country created created by the socialists?"

How dare you criticize the motherland! I can hear Lord Calvert's jackbooted henchmen marching up your driveway! RISE UP, O OPRESSED MASSES, AND PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO YOUR TRUE LIBERO-FASCIST MASTERS, university students, co-op members, and food not bombs volunteers. Isn't that who you're claiming are the intolerant, hate-mongering socialists who "created created" our province?


Posted by: pseud onym at March 8, 2006 12:44 PM

Hi Bunny, I think that this was going to explode regardless of what PMcK'n did: I agree that it was damage control, and somewhat effective at distancing the U from this disgrace.

Posted by: Bushman at March 8, 2006 12:46 PM

Sunday will soon be here and many of us will go to our church. At one point in almost all services there is a time to pray for your own intentions. How about next Sunday, we all pray that the staff of the Sheaf get a conscience, and then a brain.(or vice versa)Lets all light a candle for them. Nothing urks these idiots more than having someone say a prayer for them. Now, all together, God, please forgive Jeff, Jeremy and the others, for they know not what they do.
I imagine that many of them will enjoy their Mc jobs with their degree of stupidity.

Posted by: maryT at March 8, 2006 1:07 PM

"I think that's what Conservatives fear most of all, we're sharing our country with the clinically insane."

I'm starting to understand that too Irwin.
I'm starting to believe that there really is no left wing.
There are just people who are flat wrong, or insane or so illogical that they do not want to understand,....(wait that's insane, never mind ).

We have logical people informed on issues, and then everybody else.

The positions the left or insane people take on all issues are easily blasted to bits as the hypocritical moral relevancy arguments that they always seem to rely on, since abandoning logical reasoning.

There just seems to be only two sides to every issue, the informed, rational side and the dumb supported by the intellectually dishonest who are always trough suckers.
How long do leftys stick around this site were they are able to argue and debate their left insane points?
Not very, they get it within a week or two, they can not defend shit without lying and they disappear just about as fast as their insane illusions.

Take for an example a Canadian economics or poli science prof who is a socialist or communist.
This is such an oxymoronic concept that it almost stops me in my tracks.
What is left to argue?
What could they actually contribute in todays world.
Who is still argueing socialism or communisms positive contributions to mankind?

From my time at university and from reading the stupid comments from the U of S students it seems that commy poly science profs are the norm and not the exception.
How can this be good for Canada.
Why do so many young peoples and liberals viewpoints seem irrational , hypocritical or insane,?....it's because they are wrong.

There is no need to balance right with wrong.
We don't require a professor on campus that promotes economic or political points that are destructive for the sake of a balanced education.

In resources managment we hold "sustainable development" as a cornerstone of modern management for renewable resources.
We don't employ a prof who espouses slash and burn overdevelopment untill the renewable resource is depleted.
That would be wrong,..insane.
We don't teach a baby to not touch the stove "because you'll get burned", and then bring in someone else to teach the kids how to burn themselves, in the name of balance.

So why are we teaching kids that Karl Freekin Marx, and Osama Bin Laden (kissmyass) are the default positions for the university educated,?... because dumbass trough sucking university administators and profs are wrong, and they must be terminated before they negatively affect more young people with insane destructive ideas.


Posted by: richfisher at March 8, 2006 1:13 PM

pseud...serial eh?

Is that clicking sound a gun I hear loading?

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 1:22 PM

Hi, Bushman.

I just think Peter Mackinnon didn't achieve the damage control he sought with that email, he just increased it.

The Sheaf's editor would have still had to step down, regardless of what happened with the comic and how much publicity it received.

Why weren't the papers pulled last Friday, when the issue became apparent?

His apologizing and the sheaf leaving the papers out there, that combo was like "here, read this. See that you are being insulted".

Who knows how much backlash he would have received by not publicly apologizing via email.

Hindsight, I guess.

Ahh, yes, academia. Going to university still doesn't guarantee you'll be surrounded by smart people.

Posted by: bunny at March 8, 2006 1:29 PM

A certain professor Gramschi wrote about lefties, in his case out and out communists, systematically taking over institutions of higher learning, the judicial bench and institutions of journalism being the best path to power. Fortunately, he was wrong, but sometimes I wish there were more commie stevedores and farmers and less of these twaddling twerps.

Posted by: Honza Prchal at March 8, 2006 1:54 PM

I am really disgusted and appalled by this sort of offensive act. I didn't find the comic funny, was there a plot, WHAT was the point in it being printed? What was the So called "artist" trying to convey anyway? I am still very shocked, I guess any idiot can pick up a pencil and draw something and call themself an artist or "comic artist" . Anyone in thier RIGHT MIND would find this Very offensive. What is this world coming to.

Posted by: Ava-Daun Miller at March 8, 2006 2:09 PM

Not saying that the sheaf's actions should have been overlooked, but we might as well expect a tuition increase next year based on the fact that the university's funding will suffer one way or another after all this bad publicity.

In the end, who's really paying for it? The students.

Imagine that, students paying for their own education. What a novel concept.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 8, 2006 2:18 PM

tomax:
"gee...who pee'd in your cerial this morning?"

thanks for your thought-provoking contribution. I'll have you know it's spelled "serial."

I disagree. The comision of grammer and spelling erros is disforgivible.

Posted by pseud onym at March 8, 2006 12:44 PM

LOL, I guess this is about a cartoon.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 8, 2006 2:30 PM

Pseudo Bum:
"You're a fundamentalist, big deal"

Not really, I am a Christian but I think you should read the dictionary before using big words. Once again you show your true colors as an insensitive bigot with every keystroke. So I guess those people that consider you a Christian (your previous comments) are sadly mistaken and you don't bother correcting the misconception. Thanks for telling everyone how you like to mislead...obviously a person of integrity we should all listen to.

"Show me a systemic example of intolerance and hate toward Christians in our culture"

Last year's same sex debate has more media examples than a Hutterite farm has chickens. The threat to Christian freedoms and Canadian families over that issue is still very much a present concern (not yours of course, you'd rather defend obscene dribbles). Internationally...look at Sudan, Nigeria, China for recently reported injustices against people for Christian beliefs.

It's quite sad, Pseudo, how you can get all self righteous and angry over suggestions of putting people you value in the same position as Jesus in a toon that you think is Mona's Lisa but won't even try to understand the hurt perceptions of Christian people. Given your already questionable integrity (see above), that could be construed willful ignorance? Maybe you could overcome your CONDITIONING enough to say why?


Posted by: Martin B. at March 8, 2006 2:41 PM

tomax:
"pseud...serial eh?

Is that clicking sound a gun I hear loading?"

No, it's the mousetrap on your toe by not being able to recognise irony. Or it's your purely symbolic goat neck snapped by my purely symbolic troll? Alternatively, the serial i mentioned was Capitalist Piglet itself, which is an ongoing story (the comic in question is either no. 4 or 5). Either way, get a joke. Please witness more stunning punnery later in my message:

"The comision of grammer and spelling erros is disforgivible."

I make the odd mistak, but 4 in a sentence?

And, hey, Martin B, I noticed that the proprietor of this blog has the mensa logo on it. As to my being comatose, I passed the mensa test when I was 16 and got 85 in my university logic class. The people I play music with would tell you I'm sometimes absent-minded, but always awake. You know what's messed up? The fact that we're supposed to be discussing important concepts and I'm reduced to defending myself from playground namecalling. Well, in that case, everyone,

I know you are, but what am I?

and

Fuck'em if they can't take a joke.

Namaste!

Posted by: sued onan at March 8, 2006 2:46 PM

Unfortunately intelligence seldom equals wisdom.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 8, 2006 3:22 PM

Contrary to what you all seem to believe, all of the editors of the Sheaf, and all of the staff involved are not idiots.

Do you really think that they would not realize the backlash they would suffer if they posted this cartoon? I'm sure that not every single one of them is Christian hating athiest. Maybe they didn't pull the papers or apologize immediately because no one was complaining. People don't read the Sheaf. People skim the Sheaf and don't care. It informs students about upcoming events and it provides something to waste time while you're sitting around campus waiting.

One person's opinion was expressed in this cartoon. He thought of the idea, the image, and then he drew it and it was published.
Isn't it all of you who are making suggestions for other comics that should be drawn, to see what the reactions would be? Osama having sex with Mohammed and so on? That creates an image in my head, and even though it's not published and I don't see it drawn out for me, couldn't I still find that offensive because you've suggested it to me?

This discussion isn't productive. It's one sided. You're only succeeding in stomping out anyone elses opinions.

Calling people names like 'asshat' with a bunch of insulting adjectives before and after it don't accomplish anything. Does that make you feel like the bigger person? Does insulting spelling skills and grammatical errors make you the better person?

Since I'm only a first year student maybe I'm just brainless and too naive to understand any of this, right?

If students cared and didn't want to pay their Sheaf fees with their tuition why wouldn't they take action? Why not get a bunch of angry Sheaf haters together and demand that they get the $6.10 removed from their fee total? Don't be passive and just pay it because 'you have to.'

I know that the cartoon was offensive, not to me personally, and not to most of my very Christian friends, who regarded it as immature garbage, but I don't think that it should be taken to this level. There were maybe 10 people directly involved at the most. Is that any reason to pull funding from the University and make the rest of the students suffer? Shut down the Sheaf, sure, who needs a student paper? It's not likely that many would miss it, but it's not the University's fault and not everyone who attends the U of S is a naive child.

Posted by: Grant at March 8, 2006 3:37 PM

Psuedo Dumb:
"I'm reduced to defending myself from playground namecalling"

I'm sorry...really, really, really sorry...it was...uh, a mistake.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 8, 2006 3:40 PM

Imagine... religion AND capitalism being insulted!! Time for censorship!!!!

Posted by: THX1138 at March 8, 2006 3:46 PM

bunny:
"Ahh, yes, academia. Going to university still doesn't guarantee you'll be surrounded by smart people."

Yeah, a lot of smart people learn that one the hard way. (:

Ol hoss:

Thanks for having a sense of humour.

Martin B, my determined opponent,
""You're a fundamentalist, big deal"

Not really, I am a Christian but I think you should read the dictionary before using big words."

My dictionary says "the belief that the words of the bible were inspired by God and should be believed and followed literally." My usage of it, I suppose is more general, and could possibly be replaced with "literalism" or something like that. My point is that when we read the stories in the bible as things that literally happened thousands of years ago we tend to forget that they're happening all the time, right now in fact, and that their universal nature is obscured by attempts to prove their having happened and not looking past the narrative to the symbolically dense, emotionally powerful, universal mythic outpouring, which the bible is a leading example of. Aligning yourself with one god over others shows you believe in other gods. What I would call god transcends divisions, and couldn't possibly be jealous, all things bring a part of it/him/her/me/you. That's the kind of supreme being I can't see having hurt feelings over a cartoon.

Wow, I suppose theology is part of this, Thanks again, Jeff, for bringing up the important stuff!

"Last year's same sex debate has more media examples than a Hutterite farm has chickens. The threat to Christian freedoms and Canadian families over that issue is still very much a present concern (not yours of course, you'd rather defend obscene dribbles)."

As far as I know, no church has been forced by law to ordain, or marry homosexuals, or to condone its practice or identification. That would be infringing on religious freedom. I have, however, seen much discussion, in secular settings like this and within individual denominations, which is evidence of our freedom.

"Internationally...look at Sudan, Nigeria, China for recently reported injustices against people for Christian beliefs."

I believe that, but it's out ouf the scope of this discussion. We're talking about a cartoon in a Saskatoon publication, and people's reactions to it.

"It's quite sad, Pseudo, how you can get all self righteous and angry over suggestions of putting people you value in the same position as Jesus in a toon that you think is Mona's Lisa but won't even try to understand the hurt perceptions of Christian people. Given your already questionable integrity (see above), that could be construed willful ignorance? Maybe you could overcome your CONDITIONING enough to say why?"

I think people arguing for free speech are right. I think people arguing for dignity and respect are right. I think that covers all of us, doesn't it? Who am I unwilling to understand, exactly? Freedoms and dignity and respect are not mutually exclusive. I know Christians have an ok time in the place that I live because people have the audacity to come to my door proselytising and get away with it. I think if there were a serious culture of hate and intolerance around here (Saskatoon), there'd be lots more Jehovah's Witnesses going missing. As it is, they're an annoyance that's free to annoy everyone. Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, evangelicals, adventists, and whoever else have (as they should) total religious freedom.

Posted by: pseud onym at March 8, 2006 3:57 PM

old hoss:
"Unfortunately intelligence seldom equals wisdom."

I don't get it. I guess I'm just a young buck.

Grant:
"I know that the cartoon was offensive, not to me personally, and not to most of my very Christian friends, who regarded it as immature garbage, but I don't think that it should be taken to this level."

Thanks for speaking up. I agree wholeheartedly.

Martin:
"Psuedo Dumb:
"I'm reduced to defending myself from playground namecalling"

I'm sorry...really, really, really sorry...it was...uh, a mistake."

No way. I will hunt you to the ends of the earth, if it's the last thing I do, to gain the proper respect!!! No apology could possibly suffice to remedy this grave transgression! May all who call me comatose quiver at my approach, for I shall surely smite them with my righteous blunt object until their brains do leak out their ears!

You really don't need to apologise for calling me comatose or a poophead or dumb. Sticks and stones and university rags and all.

Posted by: psued onym at March 8, 2006 4:15 PM

I think I know what's at the core of this argument:

People standing up for what is right

vs.

People standing against what's wrong.

Posted by: pseud onym at March 8, 2006 4:21 PM

Psuedo,
You need a thicker skin. I didn't call you a "Poophead" but it's funny you bring it up...

Posted by: Martin B. at March 8, 2006 5:33 PM

Grant hit the nail on the head.

People on both sides of the spectrum (the 'leftists' and 'righties') are exploiting this opportunity to stab at one another.

If people weren't so irrational and actually stopped to think, they might be able to see how what happened are (*gasp* as the Sheaf says) mistakes and neglect at the personal level. Shutting down the paper or refunding people their $6.10 doesn't make much sense.

What does make sense are those whom are directly responsible accept the blame, be disciplined, and then the Sheaf can evaluate the whole process. Hey, look, that's what the Sheaf is doing...

1) They issued a preliminary apology.

2) Everyone can read the full, formal apology tomorrow (if you're a student that is, and not just any old joe off-campus who is upset).

3) The Editor-in-Chief has resigned.

4) Next year there is a whole new staff. Since every year new editorial positions are filled, plus nobody from the present staff will be returning anyways.

Notice how those are all moderate actions? If this was such a 'leftist' publication that so many 'righties' claim, I'm sure that the Sheaf wouldn't have done ANY of what they are doing.

Read: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=f63492b1-35f4-4604-a565-af68981115c3

Anyone else notice how it are external organizations and individuals who are calling upon such extreme punishment and actions towards the Sheaf? Although they do have their right to say what they feel is valid punishment... shouldn't it be those who are DIRECTLY affected (i.e. students) who should decide what happens?

Of course you haven't noticed. You've been too busy throwing naughty words and 'intelligent insults' at one another.

It was not the Sheaf who pulled all the copies from the stands. It's a huge disgrace that the paper would be dumped. Those who have done it should issue their own apology to the volunteers who put their hard effort in each week to see their work published -- not dumped in the garbage.

Posted by: Andrew at March 8, 2006 5:40 PM

You are idiots. That person is full of it. If someone wants to say marxist pseudo liberal fascists that's fine. Just because boggins outed you and your nut-huggin buddies...relax take a deep breath and get back to listening to your Yanni records!

Posted by: shtergen at March 8, 2006 5:44 PM

pseud

BINGO!

People standing up for what is right
(if right meaning freedom of stupidity)
vs.
People standing against what is wrong.
(if wrong meaning against morals)

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 5:46 PM

Martin:
"Psuedo,
You need a thicker skin."

You're right. I've been overreacting this whole time, treating a minor offense as an attack on my life. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of all the people who get way too worked up and offended over insignificant things like cartoons. We're sorry we're wasting our lives on such fruitless pursuits as crusades against shoddy campus newspapers and student cartoonists. May the LORD have mercy on our thin skins and decadent lives.

Posted by: pseudo nym at March 8, 2006 5:47 PM

Come on people only 30 more postings till we break the 500 barrier!

How about a debate on the Captialist Piglet cartoon...

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 5:50 PM

Because newspapers conveniently refuse to publish such material, here is a news release from CAIR-CAN about the cartoon. What are the odds you ever see this in a newspaper?

CAIR-CAN WELCOMES NEWSPAPER'S APOLOGY FOR OFFENSIVE 'JESUS' CARTOON - TOP

(OTTAWA, CANADA - 07/03/06) - The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) welcomes the apology from the Saskatoon Sheaf newspaper after it published an offensive cartoon about Jesus.

The Sheaf, a student-run newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan, issued an apology on Monday for publishing the cartoon. The newspaper had previously decided not to print offensive cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.

In a statement released today, CAIR-CAN said:

"It is deeply saddening that a newspaper that respectfully refrained from publishing offensive cartoons on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him) instead resorted to publishing cartoons about another revered religious figure.

"In Islam, Jesus (peace be with him) is considered to be a Prophet of God, like Muhammad, and he is held in high-esteem by Muslims. As a figure of religious significance in both Christianity and Islam, we stand with Christians in denouncing this offensive depiction of Jesus.

"While Canadian Muslims value freedom of expression, we recognize that the rights and freedoms we enjoy in Canada come with responsibilities that include distinguishing between meaningful debate and hateful or insulting comments.

"We are dismayed that the Sheaf departed from its previous stance on such offensive material, however we welcome its apology and hope that it will refrain from publishing such disrespectful material in the future."

For more information, please contact Halima Mautbur at ...

Posted by: Kim at March 8, 2006 5:55 PM

On another blog an Anon posted:

The difference between the Danish cartoons and the Jesus cartoon is a chasm.

On the one hand, some are blowing themselves and others up in the name of their religion, scaring everyone in their path? Therefor Muhammed in the bomb turban is a legitimate cartoon representing the political climate.

On the other hand, you have Jesus on His knees ready to blow someone. WHAT point is that trying to make other than to piss people off?

Do Christians go around giving blow jobs to capitalism?

Other than making 'the left' feel guilty, what do they have to fear from Christians?

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 6:38 PM

Another Anon said:

Since when did a "journalist's" job become one of "afflicting the comfortable." Surely, newspapers are meant to report the news. I'm tired of feeble minded, narcissistic, self-serving "journalists" telling me what to think. If you want to send a message, call Western Union

------
I feel like 'Scrat' from Ice Age - running around looking for acorns, err postings, to break the 500...

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 6:41 PM

Another Anon said...

Actually no, I get my inspirations from washroom walls - here i sit broken hearted...

err..WAIT...that's MY posting!!!

Dang, this still counts doesn't it?

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 6:46 PM

Pseudo child:
"I've been overreacting this whole time"

Actually, I think you're under-reacting. It's too bad you lack sensitivity for others. Only concerned with yourself. But then you've got some growing up to do.

You'll see someday that published "insignificant things like cartoons" that marginalize people's beliefs really aren't.

BTW, you asking the Lord for mercy inspite of what you really believe isn't strengthening your position. It just makes you look like Pseudo Scum.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 8, 2006 6:46 PM

Come on people only 30 more postings till we break the 500 barrier!

How about a debate on the Captialist Piglet cartoon...

LOL

Posted by: spike at March 8, 2006 6:53 PM

Martin my esteemed colleague:
"Pseudo child:
"I've been overreacting this whole time"

Actually, I think you're under-reacting."

Oh, so that's what you meant by being thin-skinned. Weird, I would have thought a thin-skinned person would be oversensitive to nonthreatening things.

"It's too bad you lack sensitivity for others. Only concerned with yourself. But then you've got some growing up to do. You'll see someday that published "insignificant things like cartoons" that marginalize people's beliefs really aren't."

Wow, your horse is high. From here on the ground, you sure do look imposing. What you say must be The Truth. Seriously, though, no one has made any convincing argument claiming this cartoon harms or restricts anyone. We're all free to practice our religion here in Saskatoon.

"BTW, you asking the Lord for mercy inspite of what you really believe isn't strengthening your position. It just makes you look like Pseudo Scum."

Well, considering that I've always been an insignificant portion of a thin layer of scum on a tiny rock orbiting one of countless stars, a promotion to false scum means a lot to me.

By the way, everyone, I just talked to Jeff. He's happy to say that he's received a lot of support from people who either

a)don't think he deserves persecution

and/or

b) (horror of horrors) actually find the cartoon funny.

The highest proportion of condemnation is mediated, through tv, radio, email, blogs, etc. Flesh-and-blood people in the real world are a lot more nuanced than the incendiary fanatics and comatose hatemongers (the most dangerous kind of hatemonger) displayed on this page (present company included). Isn't it nice to know that a wide range of perspectives have the freedom to be voiced in an ever-increasing variety of ways? Honestly, it boggles my mind how lucky we are to live in such interesting times and to take part in such an important discussion.

Posted by: pseud onym at March 8, 2006 7:24 PM

Almost 500 entries and still going strong!
And I thought Emerson was "THE STORY THAT WOULDN'T DIE"!!

Posted by: Canadian Observer at March 8, 2006 7:33 PM

We're all free to practice our religion here in Saskatoon.

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2001_July_August/articles_7.html

Excerps;

Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal Bans The Bible

On June 15, 2001, a one-woman Human Rights Board of Inquiry ordered all parts of the Bible referring to homosexuality be publicly banned in Saskatchewan. In this decision, political correctness dictated that the protection of homosexuals' "feelings" is a right which is superior to the centuries-old protection granted to religion in our western civilization. This decision is the pinnacle of the many absurdities that Canadians have had to endure from reckless and uncontrolled Human Rights Tribunals.

Background

Hugh Owens, a Christian living in Saskatoon, placed an advertisement in the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on June 30, 1997. The advertisement consisted of a picture of two stick figures holding hands inside a circle with a slash through it. The ad also included four Biblical references. The Biblical references (but not the actual wording) were: Romans 1:26; Leviticus 18;22; Leviticus 20:23 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 8, 2006 7:50 PM

ol hoss...

i guess its time to take the so called human rights tribunals to task. what gives them the right to re-write history. seems like hitler all over again. protect one but not the other. only in canada eh.

Posted by: spike at March 8, 2006 8:25 PM

Pseudo Drugged:
"an insignificant portion of a thin layer of scum"

Maybe that's it, Pseudo...how can anyone's rights and beliefs be important to someone who believes everything is crap.

Posted by: Martin B. at March 8, 2006 8:56 PM


Martin B
Good one !
"I'm sorry...really, really, really sorry...it was...uh, a mistake."

Posted by: richfisher at March 8, 2006 9:00 PM

Pseud onym, there is no country called Saskachewanistan: I can't beleive that you fell for that! Also, pseudonym is one word, not two! Dumas!

Posted by: Bushman at March 8, 2006 9:09 PM

To Sympathy:

Blah Blah...? Whatever dude. Reviewing history might help someone not to repeat the same mistakes. As my nick implies, as is the case with most christians, I am still not offended. After all I lived the better part of 40 years doing things according to my own personal rules too. You probably haven't lived long enough to be as bad as I used to be.

How's that for self-examination (which by the way is mandatory for "real" christians) You should try it some time.

This latest "attempt" at offending christians is meager given the other efforts that can has seen in multitudes of movies, music, books, theatre and everywhere else as long as I can remember. (This cartoon does not even reach the top 1000 in to being the most offensive)

How is it I am not offended? Well let me see... Oh yah. The one who is being offended is the God you don't believe in....yet. This is between them and I imagine God is up to the challenge.

Posted by: No Offence Taken at March 8, 2006 9:35 PM

As a Christian, the comments on this blog sadden and disgust me more than the comic did. The people who claim to be Christians and post hateful comments are going against the basic principals of the faith that they apparently follow.

In my religious studies class today we learned that people who don't forgive a mistake are consumed by their egos. The Fruits of the Spirit should be remembered in this case...and in all cases...specifically love and peace!

Also consider the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15: 11-32)

Clara

p.s. Jennifer...the Sheaf fee is $6.10/year not $30/year. Perhaps you should look at your tuition statment before making such comments.

Posted by: clara at March 8, 2006 9:42 PM

clara,

Was there a discussion about this whole issue in that class? I'm curious to hear what the perspectives and overall consensus was.

Posted by: Andrew at March 8, 2006 10:13 PM

Andrew,

We didn't discuss the issue about the cartoon...it just was interesting to me that the professor mentioned forgiveness (not even referring to anything specifically) and the Fruits of the Spirit. It applies so well to this situation.

Posted by: clara at March 8, 2006 10:18 PM

Clara,
"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips, then walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." DC Talk
You are correct in your assessment that there are some on this thread that "claim to be Christians" and yet seem to see nothing wrong with posting "hateful comments".
True Christians are known by their fruits. Jesus said "...by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:20-21
What fruits?
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Gal 5:22-23
Don't despair. God is still on the throne and He knows those who are His. Keep looking up!
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 8, 2006 11:21 PM

I beg to differ Clara - and don't take this personally - but just your admitting of being disgusted maybe shows you need to practice what you preach of love and peace.

Also, is "disgusted" a Fruit of the Spirit?

[Oh, btw, that cut towards Jennifer was really full of grace and love. Perhaps you need to re-read your notes.]

So would I be wrong in thinking that in order to be 'disgusted' one has to first judge?

So please enlighten me, which is worse...

A. Allowing people to speak their minds, no matter how off base or disgusting they are,

or

B. Not respecting that freedom but harbouring disgust towards those who don't fit into your preconceived idea of correctness?

But that's just my opinion. Heck what do I know, maybe I'm just a disgusting kinda guy?

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 11:22 PM

Let's go back ... long before 'capitalist piglet' was published last Friday, students have been instrumental in enabling social change. The most socially-critical lot, Marxists, Leftists, Functionalists, and Students for a Democratic Society alike continue to pose challenges to the capitalist 'system' of military, governnemt-state, industry, religion, media-ideology, and educational institutions such as the U of S. Some have died in the process. Other have been jailed. More are persecuted as 'communists', radicals, and/or 'heathens'. As civil society and the public sphere shrink under the pressures of commerce and consumerism, globalization, war, and 'one' world culture, public criticism and debate are threatened. Uni-directional force-feeds tell us how to think, act, and obey and are increasingly more difficult to engage: 'freedom' of thought has become a matter of type of media one consumes. This cartoon is a statement that has exploded into public action, and while it may be offensive, the reaction it has generated has revived our ability to think and act and that was the point, if I may be so bold as to second-guess the 'all-star comic duo'. The danger, however, remains with those who posture against students and student papers, 'the left', or alternative forms of thought in general, and support - without really understanding the trends in post-secondary education today - the 'pulling out' of tax (public) support in protest. Not only would this assist certain special interest groups with privatization of knowledge agendas, it would enable a certain kind of society that would be of no benefit to the majority of posters to this blog, or to Canadian population overall. We all have an opinion - at least I hope we do - and we have the right to express it as long as no harm befalls another, but as the the old parable goes "be careful what you wish for".

A Graduate Student in Social Engineering

Posted by: Academentia at March 8, 2006 11:34 PM

***ALERT***

The Sheaf has released Thursday the 9th's edition, online now.

Go to http://thesheaf.com/ and near the bottom right is tte .pdf download link.

Page two has the apology and resignation of their editor.

Posted by: tomax at March 8, 2006 11:36 PM

The love police need to learn the difference between phileo and agapao.

John 21:15-17, "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (agapao) thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (phileo) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest (agapao) thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love (phileo) thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

From the Strong's Concordance;

5368 phileo from 5384; to be a friend to (fond of [an individual or an object]), i.e. have affection for (denoting personal attachment, as a matter of sentiment or feeling; while 25 agapao is wider, embracing espec. the judgement and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety: the two thus stand related very much as 2309 and 1014, or as 2372 and 3563 respectively: the former being chiefly of the heart and the latter of the head): spec. to kiss (as a mark of tenderness).

Posted by: ol hoss at March 8, 2006 11:46 PM

I wasn't going to comment and I was getting pretty tired of reading this thread, but in the interests of pushing the comments over 500 (this should be #493) here's a link to a blog seemingly dedicated to Capitalist Piglet:

http://emptycalorie.blogspot.com/

Thanks to Jeremy (the Sheaf guy who resigned honourably) via his blog:

http://waywardreporter.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Bacardi Breezer at March 8, 2006 11:50 PM

Wow! After Googling "Capitalist Piglet" it appears to be quite well-discussed on various other forums too:

http://krydoristan.blogspot.com/2006/03/sheaf-cartoon.html#links

and here too:

http://blacksheeppress.blogspot.com/2006/03/makes-me-proud-to-be-u-of-s-student.html

Posted by: Bacardi Breezer at March 8, 2006 11:55 PM

The cartoonist of the Capitalist Pig wrote this in the Sheaf (for those few who don't have Acrobat Reader) and his email is at the bottom if you wish to send support or CONSTRUCTIVE critique.

---------------------------------

As the sole writer and artist of the most recent
“Capitalist Piglet” cartoon I feel I must take
a step which I had not intended, and that is
to take credit for the comic. I do this now
for no reason other than to exonerate Mr.
Mark Watson from the misplaced attacks he
is receiving. As Mark points out to President
MacKinnon in his letter that some of you
might be fortunate enough to have read, this
cartoon was inevitable. I wonʼt say much
about how necessary something like this was,
and how in the very same week, two other
Christian-content comics were printed, but
I will mention a few things that I hope will
bring us back to reality and off those Inquisition-
esque high horses that are so popular and
easy to get on.
My fi rst thought is “Can we really take
the antics of an anthropomorphic ungulate
that seriously?” My answer is NO. How can
we if they donʼt exist?
Really, people, “Capitalist Piglet” is only
a comic and the Sheaf is a university newspaper.
Remember what that means? University?
Itʼs a place for open minds and that
should mean free speech and press. “Capitalist
Piglet” is quite obviously not a hatedriven
comic, and it is undeniably about more
than just shock value. If it was shock value,
Iʼm sure it would have been more graphic,
and it wouldnʼt have contained such a unique
quality as two punch lines in only two frames
– that is cartoon gold.
My question now is this: how is this
blasphemous, deviant, offensive, or worthy
of such attacks? Unless you view the actions
portrayed in the comic as representative of
characters of ill repute, then I see no problem
with the joke. And if you see homosexuality,
the attempts to adhere to a kosher diet,
or being an eager-to-please corporate intern
as fi endishly negative, then it seems an open
mind and a light heart is the next thing we
should all try and look for in our classes.
After all, people, Iʼm sure Jesus had a sense
of humour.
Now on that point: did Muhammad the
Prophet have a sense of humor? I bet he did.
The difference between these two comics
(you know the other one) is that the other
one was dumb. Yes, thatʼs blunt, but it had
no punch line, it had no style, and it was just
plain hateful. Bombs are bad, thatʼs pretty
straightforward. Imagine that comic with
Gavin Gardiner heading to Regina. Not cool.
But Gavin and, say, Brett Campbell in the
place of Piglet and Jesus? Not so bad.
Further with the comparisons here. One
of the points of the recent “Capitalist Pig”
comic was this: How many of you thought
“Why are those people getting so worked up
over that comic? Itʼs only a comic, we Christians
wouldnʼt have done that, no way.” Well
no, most people wouldnʼt, and at the same
time, most people havenʼt done that over “the
other comic” either. The media is handling
that irresponsibly to portray a group in a
negative light. Thatʼs a whole other topic, so
Iʼll try stay on task here.
Sometimes we need something to point
out to us how others might feel. Racism is a
skill we unfortunately learn everywhere, but
empathy is harder to come by. So maybe next
time, remember this: If Jesus loves you, he
probably does so enough to take a joke. After
all, he did die for us.
Feel free to email me at
Yphcomics@gmail.com if this still doesnʼt sit
well with you.
Jeff “Y!PH” MacDonald

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 12:03 AM

Let's go back ... long before 'capitalist piglet' was published last Friday, students have been instrumental in enabling social change. The most socially-critical lot, Marxists, Leftists, Functionalists, and Students for a Democratic Society alike continue to pose challenges to the capitalist 'system' of military, governnemt-state, industry, religion, media-ideology, and educational institutions such as the U of S. Some have died in the process. Other have been jailed. More are persecuted as 'communists', radicals, and/or 'heathens'. As civil society and the public sphere shrink under the pressures of commerce and consumerism, globalization, war, and 'one' world culture, public criticism and debate are threatened. Uni-directional force-feeds tell us how to think, act, and obey and are increasingly more difficult to engage: 'freedom' of thought has become a matter of type of media one consumes. This cartoon is a statement that has exploded into public action, and while it may be offensive, the reaction it has generated has revived our ability to think and act and that was the point, if I may be so bold as to second-guess the 'all-star comic duo'. The danger, however, remains with those who posture against students and student papers, 'the left', or alternative forms of thought in general, and support - without really understanding the trends in post-secondary education today - the 'pulling out' of tax (public) support in protest. Not only would this assist certain special interest groups with privatization of knowledge agendas, it would enable a certain kind of society that would be of no benefit to the majority of posters to this blog, or to Canadian population overall. We all have an opinion - at least I hope we do - and we have the right to express it as long as no harm befalls another, but as the the old parable goes "be careful what you wish for".

A Graduate Student in Social Engineering

Posted by: Academentia at March 9, 2006 12:19 AM

Hopefully now we all can put this to rest, and moreso, hopefully some learned a lesson of what desecration, err, discretion means.

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 12:22 AM

Jeff MacDonald begins by pointing out it's only a comic and shouldn't be taken seriously. (My how leftists love that word, anthropomorphic)

He ends by pointing out why we should take the comic seriously.

A doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:8.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 12:44 AM

You are right Tom. My comment toward Jennifer was not loving, nor peacful. It did indeed sound cruel. I believe everyone has the right to say what they want...but I reserve the right to be sad about those comments.

I am sorry Jennifer. I believe the correct facts should be known, and the amount for the Sheaf fee is indeed found in the tuition statment...as are all our other fees.

Next time I will try to follow my own advice a little more closely.

clara

Posted by: clara at March 9, 2006 1:11 AM

WOW...the 500th entry on this thread and I have nothing important to say!

Posted by: Canadian Observer at March 9, 2006 1:37 AM

*whew*, I was waiting for someone to post the 500th one...

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 1:53 AM

I suspect that Jeff has been following this thread fairly closely over the last few days as he still seems pretty proud of his creation and this is where there has been much feedback so I will give him an answer to his question here. Jeff asked:
"My question now is this: how is this blasphemous, deviant, offensive, or worthy of such attacks?"
First of all, if you have to ask the question, you probably already know the answer. There have been many here who have tried to express their feelings of disgust. That alone will tell you how it is offensive. It is offensive because you have slandered their Lord.
It is deviant because it is a representation of public fellacio, bestiality and it promotes kiddie porn. I know you have said "It is only a cartoon." These things like pedophelia and bestiality are issues that are fast upon us and are already being represented on the www. The appetite for these things is only going to grow and put our children and others at risk. How do things like these become acceptable? First they are introduced innocently and harmlessly as in a cartoon perhaps. It is the thin edge of the wedge. That is my opinion. You asked "how".
How is it blasphemous? When you represent an image of the Son of God doing vile things with a pig...in most religious circles this would be considered blasphemy. Again, that is my opinion.
As for your last question, "is it worthy of such attacks...probably not, although you are counting heavily on the graciouness of Christians. I think there has been an over reaction, but as a Christian I say to myself "it is about time" and perhaps overdue. Christians get to be the secular society doormat when the twins, Political Correctness and Tolerance come in and wipe their feet. In todays society when we point out things that are often nothing more than respect, common courtesy, good manners or common sense, we are accused of being "intolerant". Morals are changing at lightspeed compared to what they were a generation or two generations ago.It is no wonder that Christians, who are feeling pressured on many fronts, might over react to perceived direct provocation or perceived intentional offence.
We are being introduced daily to the "new morality". I've got news for you Jeff, the "new morality" is just the old "immorality" dressed up in different clothes. There are things that are wrong because God said they are wrong. We didn't write the bible. Men wrote it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which you well know.
Jeremy spoke earlier about keeping all his hate mail as "badges of honor". I suspect that you'll end up with a few badges as well. As you know, I am no fan of your work. I think it was poor judgement on your part to submit it. What you do to entertain yourself in private is your business but there are limits to public decency and in the jugement of many, including many of your peers, you crossed that line. Submitting this cartoon has in the end caused a lot of grief for many people, the staff and faculty at STM as well as the U of S as well as many of your fellow students who, like me cannot understand how you can still defend the indefensible.
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 9, 2006 2:10 AM

Gadzooks, this issue is all over the place, hit a gold mine of references at
http://emptycalorie.blogspot.com/2006/03/capitalist-piglet-controversy-selected.html

The titles are arranged alphabetically.

A Christian cartoon controversy? from GetReligion

A Little Disappointed from You're A Blog

Alma matter blues from Moldy Peaches

Another Campus Newspaper Features an Anti-Christian Cartoon from Uncommon Truths

The answer is in the life of the man the cartoons insulted? from The Other Club

Anti-Jesus Porn OK In Canadian Student Paper from no dhimmitude

a veritable sheafstorm from The Edwardian Sisterhood

Back at ya, P-MAC from The Wayward Reporter

Campus newspaper apologizes over cartoon from CBC.ca

Capitalist Piglet from frequently

Cartoon controversies from across the border from Sister Toldjah

Cartoon Scandal from Celestial Junk Blog

Counter hypocrisy? from Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Double standard: Muslim Cartoons No Way but Cartoon of Jesus in Oral Sex OK from Argent by the Tiber

Fun in colij from either orr

Hot topic on campus and elsewhere from daring to be remarkable

In deep Sheaf (updated) from The Wayward Reporter

It begins from The Wayward Reporter

The Jesus Cartoon Controversy from The Cutting Room Floor

Jesus loves Pigs from Bloggy McBlogingstein

Makes me Proud to be a UofS Student from Black Sheep Press

More Cartoon Madness: Hypocrisy? from Uncommon Truths

... more on the cartoon... from David Hutton

Muhammad cartoon fallout from Fine Young Journalist

Muslims could get upset about this cartoon, too--- from Deborah Gyapong

Off With Their Heads from At Home in Hespeler

The Pig, the Sheaf, and Jesus... from Dawson Irvine

Post-weekend briefing from Marshmallows for Breakfast

re. the sheaf cartoon controversy from 09/11/81 - ?

Real Journalists Eat Wheat from Bumfonline

Saskatchewan university really screws up from Tel-Chai Nation

Sask. University Paper Publishes Explicit Jesus Cartoons from kevin's journey

The Sheaf Cartoon from Crocodile Morsels

The Sheaf Controversy and all that damn hypocrisy from Dodosville

Sheaf Newspaper Regrets Running Off-Colour Cartoon from Saskatoonhomepage.ca

Socialist Anti-Christian Hate is Okay? from Vek's Blog

Two faiths, two standards from from Daimnation

University of Saskatchewan cartoon causing big heat... from ABFreedoms

University of Saskatchewan - Jesus Oral Sex Cartoon: Yes, Mohammed Cartoon: No from Lost Budgie Blog

University Paper: Muslim Cartoons No Way but Cartoon of Jesus in Oral Sex OK from Opinipundit

The U of Sask. "Capitalist Pig" Cartoon from Canadian Christian Conservative

Western Hypocracy at Its Worst from Western Canadian Separation

With Great Power comes Great Responsibility from The Cutting Room Floor

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 2:18 AM

Love the "new" cartoons in the Sheaf.

Egad.

I think they're trying to make another point again with these new lame, and really poorly drawn cartoons...

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 3:26 AM

Jeff McDonald's heroic, chin-scratching "hmm, I'll take this publicity as being all about me" shows no consideration for the newspaper, or the University.

His response is reasonable, though, in that it illuminates his own motivations, and brings context to an incident that would otherwise involve pointless speculation regarding motives.

Let's just try to make sure he doesn't get notoriety and fame from this...

Posted by: EBD at March 9, 2006 4:41 AM

Where do I sign up for the movie rights?

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 11:27 AM

old hoss:
"(My how leftists love that word, anthropomorphic)"

That's funny. I thought it was from the greek. I guess it must make sense to attribute it to a made-up group of people.

EBD:
"Jeff McDonald's heroic, chin-scratching "hmm, I'll take this publicity as being all about me" shows no consideration for the newspaper, or the University."

That doesn't make any sense. You don't have any idea how many national television appearances Jeff has declined. He may start accepting if it doesn't blow over soon, which is really something to be decided by all the people complaining.

"His response is reasonable, though, in that it illuminates his own motivations, and brings context to an incident that would otherwise involve pointless speculation regarding motives.

Let's just try to make sure he doesn't get notoriety and fame from this... "

Not being Jeff, I can't speak for him, but he has told me explicitly that he wishes to avoid self-aggrandizement on this issue. A public debate of this scale was not his intention when he and Mark started this comic however many months ago, but from my perspective, the debate is the primary evidence of the public value of baoundry-pushing art. It's too bad that people who aren't prepared to enter into a dialogue get exposed to it.

At any rate, I've enjoyed the discussion, and if anyone has anything more to say to me, I welcome any private emails if I don't post here again. Thanks everyone.

Posted by: pseud onym at March 9, 2006 12:35 PM

I think we should all be glad we don't do this in Canada yet

http://www.yobserver.com/news_9692.php

Posted by: Chris in manitoba at March 9, 2006 1:27 PM

...from my perspective, the debate is the primary evidence of the public value of baoundry-pushing art.

Yeah, I especially like the falling on swords part.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 2:07 PM

You people are absolutely absurd. I could understand debating this issue to no end if it were maybe something that could be solved, but this can't be solved, in your opinions.

You want everyone involved to be suspended, or charged, or what?

This was a University newspaper. UNIVERSITY newspaper. Who do you think is making the least outcry about it? University students. Sure, a lot of them are very upset, but how many of the people on here arguing against the Sheaf are students at the U of S? How many of you would have even seen the paper if it hadn't hit the news?

You can't fix this, it's out of your hands. They aren't likely going to be sentenced to death, which seems to be an unforunate realization for all of you.

Their careers as journalists are likely gone out the window. The artist likely isn't wallowing happily in his hate mail.

I understand that you're Christians, and I understand that you're hurt, but can't you just accept that something went wrong, and all the people involved are going to be heading down to 'hell' when their time comes, but you will still be heading upwards, and you can laugh and joke and have a great time up there, with all the people who share your opinions when the time comes?

I'm so sick of hearing all these complaints from older people insulting young people. Not everyone under the age of 30 is an idiot. Not every arts student is going no where in life, and not everyone is going to become a conservative when they leave their post secondary education. You're making ridiculous generalizations and I think it's unfair, and more offensive than this cartoon insulting your religion. You're insulting me personally, and my life. Don't you get that? You're no better than these people. You'll go to 'heaven' and they'll go to 'hell'. Just keep that in the corner of your mind, and shut up about it, and move along.

Posted by: Grant at March 9, 2006 2:34 PM

Bushman:
"Pseud onym, there is no country called Saskachewanistan: I can't beleive that you fell for that!"

That's a good thing not to be able to believe in, untrue as it is. It sure would be weird to have a country combining Cree and Persian words.

"Also, pseudonym is one word, not two! Dumas!"

Yeah, it is, but that's not what I use as my nomd eplu me. And let's not bring the author of "The Count of Monte Cristo" into this.

old hoss:
"'...from my perspective, the debate is the primary evidence of the public value of baoundry-pushing art.'

Yeah, I especially like the falling on swords part."

Yeah. What I like is that the sword is imaginary, just like the threat to Christianity. Luckily our delusions are the only possible casualties here, and may they all die quick and painless deaths.

tomax:
"I think they're trying to make another point again with these new lame, and really poorly drawn cartoons..."

I don't think so. That's par for the course for the Sheaf.

One thing I'd like to comment on is the idea of being spoiled. A common attitude I've seen is that the cartoon is a textbook example of the mindset of an academic culture that is sheltered from the "real world." Having been a university student in the past, I can relate to the idea that a lot of bias is offered in academia, in disciplines from women's studies to commerce. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the individual to have the critical thinking faculties necessary to sift through others' biases in order to forge a reasonable, flexible worldview. The freshman "i read 2 books, now I can explain the world" syndrome is common, and easy to disdain, but it's an important part of learning to question convention and think for oneself. Some people never get there, and remain reflexive automatons their whole life. Anyone who claims to have the one right way of seeing the world should be listened to cautiously.

Anyway, I'd like to point out that the "spoiled brat" argument goes both ways. From my perspective, it seems that in a world where people are violently and systematically persecuted for their beliefs, ethnicity, and activities, it's kind of absurd for people in Canada to consider a cartoon like this threatening to anyone. I've made the same point numerous times, but seriously: anyone who honestly feels threatened by a cartoon, please go to

persecution.com

and particularly

http://www.persecution.com/basic/prisonerList.cfm?Country=ALL

to find a list of people who are truly suffering.

At the bottom of the page, you'll see a map of the "real world" of Christian persecution (with all of North America conspicuously free of attention).

Anyone suffering imprisonment or physical violence for following a religion is a victim, and needs help. Please consider doing what you can to help these people, if you are truly concerned about the suffering of Christians for their faith. It seems pretty pathetic, to me, to be fighting a cartoon when there is so much real trouble all over the world.

Grant:
"Not everyone under the age of 30 is an idiot. Not every arts student is going no where in life, and not everyone is going to become a conservative when they leave their post secondary education. You're making ridiculous generalizations and I think it's unfair, and more offensive than this cartoon insulting your religion. You're insulting me personally, and my life. Don't you get that? You're no better than these people. You'll go to 'heaven' and they'll go to 'hell'. Just keep that in the corner of your mind, and shut up about it, and move along."

Good call.

Posted by: sued onan at March 9, 2006 3:46 PM

You're insulting me personally, and my life. Don't you get that?

So sorry, it was...er... a mistake.

Hmmm, where's that sword?

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 3:52 PM

Grant: "You people are absolutely absurd. I could understand debating this issue to no end if it were maybe something that could be solved, but this can't be solved, in your opinions."

----------------------
Thank you for your opinion, however absurd, Grant.

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 3:55 PM

...it's kind of absurd for people in Canada to consider a cartoon like this threatening to anyone.

It is, isn't it? People falling on swords, and all...

I think it's quite humorous the left has been hoisted on their own petard.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 4:00 PM

Grant, are you a student of drama?

"You people are absolutely absurd.", Grants says.

Then adds, " You're making ridiculous generalizations and I think it's unfair, and more offensive than this cartoon insulting your religion. You're insulting me personally, and my life."

Most students will know exactly who is being referrenced by posters here.

~~~~~
Grants says: "Who do you think is making the least outcry about it? University students...."

Does it matter when this information is so available on the internet now and people are reacting?

~~~~
Grant: "How many of you would have even seen the paper if it hadn't hit the news?"

And that makes a difference, why?

We have seen it now, and so have many in the general public and that becomes an issue for the greater audience. Seems like it was only a matter of time and circumstance;)

~~~~
Grant: ..."can't you just accept that something went wrong, and all the people involved are going to be heading down to 'hell' when their time comes, but you will still be heading upwards, and you can laugh and joke and have a great time up there, with all the people who share your opinions when the time comes?"

No one who thinks they will know heaven, takes glee in others perhaps not.

I am surprised that merited comment, with all the information available to study Christianity.

~~~
Grant: "I'm so sick of hearing all these complaints from older people insulting young people."

There has been no whitewashing of the younger group as a whole by posters.

Are you saying students do not deal in ageism or insults, in saying:

"You're no better than these people. ...Just keep that in the corner of your mind, and shut up about it, and move along."

This is a discussion and comment section of the site; what will be found are comments and discussion. Even some of yours;)

Posted by: Buffalo Bean at March 9, 2006 4:07 PM

you know what, ol hoss:
"...it's kind of absurd for people in Canada to consider a cartoon like this threatening to anyone.

It is, isn't it? People falling on swords, and all..."

Speaking of ageism, your advanced years haven't really left you with any rhetorical skills or fluency with metaphor. The proverbial sword, in this case, was originally a conscious sacrifice. A better metaphor for your needs would be the outnumbering French soldiers at the battle of agincourt getting stuck in the mud by their own armor. In this case, whatever it is that gives "the left" its evil powers is now their downfall! Long reign the triumphant "right!"

"I think it's quite humorous the left has been hoisted on their own petard."

Wow, 2 shakespeare references in one message!

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_295b.html

I wish I could use flatulence as propellant. These leftists are obviously very powerful beings. Where do I sign up?

Posted by: onym...pseud onym at March 9, 2006 4:52 PM

pseud oreo...

What was that now in English?

-------------------------------------

"Speaking of ageism, your advanced years haven't really left you with any rhetorical skills or fluency with metaphor. The proverbial sword, in this case, was originally a conscious sacrifice. A better metaphor for your needs would be the outnumbering French soldiers at the battle of agincourt getting stuck in the mud by their own armor. In this case, whatever it is that gives "the left" its evil powers is now their downfall! Long reign the triumphant right."

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 5:38 PM

I think Fred wayyy back at post #2 really summed things up...who's smarter. But hey, if we just stopped at 2 postings, how boring life would be.

"ahhh students, smart enough to figure out which morality is "correct" - so much smarter than the rest of us."

(Hypenation - mine)

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 5:41 PM

Speaking of ageism, your advanced years haven't really left you with any rhetorical skills or fluency with metaphor. The proverbial sword, in this case, was originally a conscious sacrifice. A better metaphor for your needs would be the outnumbering French soldiers at the battle of agincourt getting stuck in the mud by their own armor.

You better take that up with your esteemed former editor.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=99d5b011-144a-4d32-8f18-c0f46174b468&k=98990

. . . someone needed to fall on their sword," Robbins wrote in his resignation letter, obtained by The StarPhoenix.

I wish I could use flatulence as propellant.

You'll have to take lessons from more mature leftists, they've been using flatulence to propel themselves for years.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 6:12 PM

Oh there's a support the Sheaf blog up now...

http://supportthesheaf.blogspot.com/

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 6:22 PM

You know another word that has been missing in this debate over the Piglet cartoon?

"Accountability".

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 6:23 PM

ol hoss

You were right, I was wrong. He doesn't repent or care at all about what he has done. I hope in time he understands.

Posted by: Defense Guy at March 9, 2006 6:36 PM

...maybe the god's that they worship aren't available, but are on the toilet.

Hmm, remember reading that somewhere...

1 Kings 18:21

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 6:37 PM

Interesting, the "support the sheaf blog" publishes a letter to the editor that didn't make print.

I asked the blog if the Sheaf uses a legal name like "The University of Saskatchewan" are they not therefor accountable to the President? Interstingly enough, the writer of this phantom letter is a Professor of Law and Member of the Executive Committee, at the University.

http://supportthesheaf.blogspot.com/

This is a copy of the following message you sent to Liam Richards via The Sheaf - University of Saskatchewan Student Newspaper

This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.thesheaf.com from:
Tim Quigley

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the extraction of a resignation from Will Robbins. From what I understand, considerable pressure was exerted on him to resign and therefore it cannot be considered a legitimate resignation. I urge the Sheaf board to reconsider that issue and also the wider issue of the cartoon. It is distressing indeed that President MacKinnon has entered the fray because academic freedom, which accrues to students as well as faculty, and freedom of speech and expression, which apply to all of us, are under threat by his intervention. I therefore urge the Sheaf board to reconsider its position on the cartoon and to strongly assert the right to publish it unhindered by any pressure from the President or anyone else. Please ask yourselves this question: Will you succumb to pressure whenever you take a controversial stand? If so, there is, unfortunately, little rationale for having a student newspaper that is independent of the USSU.
Tim Quigley
Professor of Law and Member of the Executive Committee, University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 7:12 PM

Falling on swords, and all...

1 Kings 18:27, "And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."

1 Kings 18:28, "And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them."

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 7:13 PM

Hmmm...support the sheaf blog isn't getting a lot of uh, support.

http://supportthesheaf.blogspot.com/

Interesting comment from a guy who is "Professor of Law and Member of the Executive Committee, University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association".

"...It is distressing indeed that President MacKinnon has entered the fray because academic freedom, which accrues to students as well as faculty, and freedom of speech and expression, which apply to all of us, are under threat by his intervention."

Wait, isn't the President responsible for anything with "The University of Saskatchewan" handle attached to it?

Guess what The Sheaf known as..."The University of Saskatchewan Student Newspaper"...right there on top of their publications.

Guess the word "accountability" doesn't apply to The Sheaf.

Oh well, what do I know about legal stuff.

Posted by: tomax at March 9, 2006 7:38 PM

Woooeee, the blood is flowing. There's "distress", "threat" and a "deepening chill". Even mention of "poor reactions".

Oh, woe is tolerance.

Doesn't everyone know they need to "feel safe in searching for our truths"?

This is getting really funny. LOL

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 8:51 PM

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" (John 8:7).

No one at the Sheaf condones the cartoon. Many of you don't even know the people who work for the paper and yet you judge them. Well, none of you have to worry about them being there again next year and ruining a paper that none of you even read as none are returning.

Posted by: clara at March 9, 2006 10:50 PM

You didn't know a Christian is without sin upon repentance?

Posted by: ol hoss at March 9, 2006 11:10 PM

The cartoon showing the Saviour giving head is demeaning to homosexuals. It is demeaning because it has their hope of choice seen doing what they may wish to change. The cartoon is limiting to homosexuals as it has jesus as one of them and not their hpoe their Saviour, I know I was a homosexual and am now a Christian,i find it very revolting that the God who saved me from homosexuality is seen giving head to a pig. Jesus saves from sin he does not do sin.mark

Posted by: mark at March 9, 2006 11:35 PM

Clara...something about reproving darkness...read Eph 5:11-12

I have (how do I say without sounding corney) "indside information" that The Sheaf does have ego problems and is anti-Christian...

"The cartoon was a public display of a private attitude that ran right through much of the contributors and staff of the Sheaf: disrespect for theism, (especially disrespect for Christianity), and an iconoclastic righteousness that was sometimes difficult to take..."

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 12:23 AM

Where did you get this insider information, and how do you know that it is true. Unless you have met the people who work for the Sheaf, and they have told you themselves that they are not Christians, you have no proof that your insider information is true.

Posted by: clara at March 10, 2006 1:00 AM

Read some of the "support the Sheaf blog" stuff, http://supportthesheaf.blogspot.com/

So all this rambling about "freedom of speech", "it's our right", "prove a point" doesn't seem to fit the crime.

I guess I should have asked this question at the outset of this blog:

What is this cartoon doing in a University Student newspaper, let alone the Comic section, and not Editorial section of the paper if they wanted to prove our freedom of speech?

Maybe they don't take themselves serious either?

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 1:04 AM

ditto on all points. Insider works for Sheaf, is a Christian, and I wouldn't doubt their word, and no I won't divulge a name.

Proof? You need proof? Ok, something about Fruit of the Spirit, remember that class you are taking?

By their fruits...

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 1:06 AM

Interesting read over at "support the Sheaf".

A couple of "Professors" wrote the Sheaf and more or less said the President of the University was out of place to ask for an apology from the paper.

Will be interesting in a couple of days if these two have jobs, let alone find out their emails got published in a public forum...

Whoops.

Or worse/better yet, these are make up emails by the support the sheaf blog to bolster support from what I can see I'm the only guy posting in there...

Heck what do I know, I only see a forest for the trees.

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 1:39 AM

Tomax you said:
"The Sheaf does have ego problems and is anti-Christian..."
News flash!
What difference does that make? I could really care less and it comes as no surprise. There is no compelling reason why they should be Christians, favor Christians etc. The Sheaf has every right to operate as a secular paper with secular editors and writers.
The issue was the hypocrisy displayed in not showing the Mohammad cartoons and having a four page spread laying out their reasons after a long and arduous process and then turning around one week later and printing this offence to all three faiths, Christians, Jews and Muslims.
I am a Christian and I am in no way in favor of censoring or sanitizing the Sheaf and trying to make it palitable to people of faith. Content is for them to decide based on editorial policy and decision, reader feedback and the issues of the day.
As for this cartoon, I think it crossed a line of public decency. The students and the public at large objected and action was taken. Free speech is still alive and well. It is one of the wonderful things about living in a free and democratic land. Protest is possible and sometimes effects peaceful change.
Some valuable lessons have been learned by all involved. There have been apologies and corrective actions taken. It is time to let it be and not continue to try and stir something more up. So what if they are against theism's. This is not news and really doesn't matter as far as I am concerned. As was intimated earlier, I think Jeff has gotten way more press out of this than he deserves and it is time to let it go.
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 10, 2006 1:50 AM

Kiddie porn?!?! huh. I've never known any kids to be businessmen. You people don't honestly believe that this is an issue of bestiality (since when do real pigs talk?) or child porn, do you? The Capitalist Piglet is neither a child, nor an animal. he is a metaphor. A metaphor for, in this case, political groups (and other individuals) USING Christ as a selling point to dupe Christians into agreeing to capitalist and consumerist economic policies (which, arguably, run counter to the Christian ethics of charity, protecting the weak, not focusing on the material aspects of life). [I don't think I have to actually post the biblical references for this, but I can if the need arises.]
To those who have been asking what the "deeper meaning" is to the comic: this is it. If you see it as a promotion of bestiality or child porn, you are looking pretty damn superficially.

Posted by: Cassandra at March 10, 2006 2:07 AM

Maranatha, news flash! I wasn't talking to you, but answering another person's question, so take your little *blink* somewhere else please.

Obviously free speech is not alive with you, seeing you're the judge, jury, and final speaker in this matter.

You say:
"It is one of the wonderful things about living in a free and democratic land. Protest is possible and sometimes effects peaceful change."

- But I hear: "protesting is only allowed till I say so".

You say:
"I could really care less..." and
"the issue was the hypocrisy..." and
"really doesn't matter as far as I am concerned."

But I hear: "don't confuse me with the facts, I don't want to hear other people's opinions, because my mind is already made up".

FYI.

The issue wasn't JUST the non-printing of the Danish cartoons, nor is it "censoring or sanitizing" when dragged on the carpet about the lack of accountability and responsibility shown towards being a free press.

No compelling reason to favour Christians - where the heck do you think public decency stems from then?

Egad another closet leftist.

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 2:20 AM

Cassandra,
That is an opinion, perhaps mine only, I don't know. I see a human depicted as joined in a sex act with an animal. Bestiality?
The animal, a piglet, is a child pig with childlike features in a sex act with an adult. Pedophelia?
"Superficially", if you say so, but I am not into looking into the deeper meanings of the toon. I couldn't get past the depiction of my Lord and Savior depicted as having oral sex with a pig.
It is not up to me to judge. There are books being kept and at appointed time, they will be opened and each will receive what is due them.
Jeff said "After all, people, Iʼm sure Jesus had a sense of humour."
I guess he had better hope so.
Mark 3:28-29
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 10, 2006 2:32 AM

tomax,
Sorry to rain on your parade of posts. I thought that the reason this thread was still going was for discussion. If I butted into a private conversation, hey I'm sorry.
What I was saying is that those who do not profess to follow Christ are not obligated to honor Him in the same way that His followers should. In as much as our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian principals and the publics sense of decency arises out of the law and morals taught in families (normally Christian in our society), you are correct, they are based on Chritian morals and ethics. Having said that, there are many that do not subscribe to Christian teachings and that is why we have a legal system to keep us all in a similar moral framework, otherwise we would devolve into anarchy.
Free speech is very much alive...speak on, that is your privelege as it is mine. Mine or yours will not be the last word on this one. This will give fodder for the left leaning Profs for subject matter for years to come as it hits on many hot- button issues.
As far as confused with facts...I've followed both threads here at SDA over the last few days and have read the arguments on both sides. There are lots of facts to be confused with. Yes I formed some opinions and you are welcome to ignore, debate, challenge as you see fit. That is the great thing about discussion threads.
As for calling me a closet lefty...reducing to name calling doesn't advance anything. I do not lean to the left. I have voted Conservative in every election that they have allowed me to vote in both federally and provincially. Growing up in Alberta, it was practically a birthright.
Again, I apologize, no offence intended. I can see you are on a mission to get more accountability on the issue. Go for it! All I was getting at was Jeff is unrepentant from the tone of the letter he wrote and is lapping up the extra attention which I don't think he deserves but hey, that is just my opinion, right.
Good night
Marantha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 10, 2006 3:04 AM

The Capitalist Piglet is neither a child, nor an animal. he is a metaphor. A metaphor for, in this case, political groups (and other individuals) USING Christ as a selling point...

Somehow, according to lefty reasoning, that makes it okay to be a hypocrite and USE Christ as their own selling point.

Posted by: ol hoss at March 10, 2006 9:37 AM

In as much as our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian principals...

Just wondering, does being a hyphenated Christian mean you're part Christian?

Posted by: ol hoss at March 10, 2006 9:42 AM

Nope, it means that the law is hyphenated which probably is why it is so messed up much of the time, protecting those who are guilty and making victims out of the innocent
Have a great Day ol hoss. I'm off to work to earn a living
Maranatha

Posted by: Maranatha at March 10, 2006 9:59 AM

Well I apologize for the the last posting.

I didn't mean to offend anyone by it. It was a an oversight on my part.

It wasn't meant to be posted, but somehow it slipped past my keyboard.

It was a mistake.

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 11:47 AM

From another post on another blog, which I feels should address the "hush hush" reasoning some are promoting here:

"Well, I hate to be so crude but I have to wonder if forgiveness means one not only has to quietly endure continuous hypocrisy but pay for it to. Also, proving that one person hasn't forgiven another in their heart has got to be a hard thing to prove.

And no, I'm not. I'm not a Canadian or a Christian but I am capable of seeing the idiocy of suggesting someone hasn't forgiven someone else for wrong doing just because they wish to see them held accountable.

There are prisons full of criminals who have been forgiven by their vistic and families of victims but we're all still grown up enough to realize that wrong doers must still be held accountable for their actions in a civilized society.

------------------
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 11:51 AM

Seeing you addressed me specifically, I will respond.

Maranatha. My goal isn't a 'parade of posts", but to expose the hidden things going on at a major institution that affects our future leaders, our country.

"I can see you are on a mission to get more accountability on the issue. Go for it!"

- Basically I don't want to be a one man crusade, as for name calling (closet leftist) my apology.

"All I was getting at was Jeff is unrepentant from the tone of the letter he wrote and is lapping up the extra attention which I don't think he deserves but hey, that is just my opinion, right."

- So, why not just say that?

Nevertheless, yes, repentance is a gift, and I do hope various members of the Sheaf see the error of their ways and change.

cheers
tom

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 11:58 AM

The Star-Phoniex has a good interview with the past editor, Will Robbins and he sounded like he was genuinely apologetic, but the staff is another case...they sound like they put him out as the sacrifical lamb.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=1f051b84-393a-4a3d-918e-61e745c2c354&k=5901

----------------------------
"Robbins was already crafting the apology for the Sheaf website and for the next issue when he was called to a meeting Sunday afternoon on campus. He wanted to discuss ways that "something good" could come from all the distress that had been created.

"We owed students an honest explanation, he said.

But at the meeting, Robbins was surprised to hear staff had discussed the matter, and voted unanimously that they no longer had confidence in him.

I thought we had a lot of work to do, but they said I should resign. I didn't have any options at that point, so I submitted my resignation," Robbins said.

I was hung out, even though the paper essentially runs as a collective"


Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 2:51 PM

The comments on this blog are even funnier than the cartoon itself! Tomax, you are comic gold!

Posted by: Willem at March 10, 2006 6:14 PM

I am that I are.

Posted by: tomax at March 10, 2006 7:50 PM

fork

Posted by: richfisher at March 10, 2006 9:30 PM

That cartoon is all George W. Bush's fault! (but then again, isn't everything?)

Posted by: reverse_vampyr at March 14, 2006 4:26 PM

I have only one thing to say: Get a sense of humor. Nobody is going to burn in hell for this. Maybe it is because I don't follow the Christian faith and I don't share the values for Christianity, but I thought the cartoon was really funny. Am I going to burn in hell? No, but maybe that is because I don't believe in hell. I feel sorry for the people that had to get fired because our severely conservative culture can't get a sense of humor. Really now, I think everyone needs to grow up a little.

Posted by: Leanne at March 14, 2006 9:07 PM
Site
Meter