Arabs attempt to murder Danish cartoonists.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


What's your assessment of "Piss Christ" then?

Are the creators bigoted, hateful and stupid?

Yes. It has no artistic value that I can see.

[Ben Kenobi]

It is hard to believe without actually seeing it. He makes a strong argument for free speech in his defence. What he said/published wasn't criminal (his complainant tried to go the police route and was politely told to shove off).

"I'm accused of offending Mohamed. He's dead by the way"

I thought we lived in a free country. Obviously not. It's little consolation though because Canada is willing to rally and defend Steyn and Macleans, but not the Western Standard. It took them threatening Macleans for all of this to get out in the media.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think he was hiding behind the idea of free speech.

"hiding"? Your last line

I think he's a racist who is exploiting our system.

Is what you are saying, yes? I just want to be sure we are clear.

The justification for free speech is human rights.

Close. Free speech is a human right (as well as legal/constitutional right...) among others.

He was saying that it was ironic that a organization whose purpose is to protect human rights was "interogating" him.

Not just an "organization". The Alberta Human Rights Commission is a government body with the power to compell appearance and levy punishment.

He was saying it was ironic the HRC whose purpose is to protect human rights was infringing upon his. Yes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil


"hiding"? Your last line



Is what you are saying, yes? I just want to be sure we are clear.

Yes, he is exploiting his "rights" to free speech. What do you think we have rights for? It's for protecting minorities. When the powerfull use them to create hate against minorities it's no better than not having those rights at all.

Close. Free speech is a human right (as well as legal/constitutional right...) among others.

Certain free speech is, that's correct. You are not allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want though. The purpose of the right has to be considered. It's not for creating hatred towards a minority group.

Not just an "organization". The Alberta Human Rights Commission is a government body with the power to compell appearance and levy punishment.

He was saying it was ironic the HRC whose purpose is to protect human rights was infringing upon his. Yes.

All kinds of bigoted tyrannical people have *****ed about their rights throughout history. What is so special about this guy?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Yes, he is exploiting his "rights" to free speech. What do you think we have rights for? It's for protecting minorities.

Rights apply to all equally. They are not to protect a specific segment (minority or not). He does have a right to free speech. You do not have a right not to be offended.

When the powerfull use them to create hate against minorities it's no better than not having those rights at all.

He was not creating hate. He was not charged nor will he be. And yes, we do have "hate crimes" legislation that has been enforced. Would he did was not criminal.

Certain free speech is, that's correct. You are not allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want though. The purpose of the right has to be considered. It's not for creating hatred towards a minority group.

Again, he was not "creating hate".

All kinds of bigoted tyrannical people have *****ed about their rights throughout history. What is so special about this guy?

Who said he was "special"? He is right however.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
Rights apply to all equally. They are not to protect a specific segment (minority or not). He does have a right to free speech. You do not have a right not to be offended.

I actually don't agree with that. I don't think rights are absolute. But that's not the issue. I didn't say he didn't have the right. I said he was exploiting his right. Also, I don't know where you get off saying I don't have the right to be offended. First of all, I'm not offended, someone else is. Second, either someone is or is not offended, it has nothing to do with rights. Generally, I think it's wrong to offend people unless you have some other reason except for just being an *******.

He was not creating hate.

Why not? You don't think telling racist or bigoted jokes creates hate?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I actually don't agree with that. I don't think rights are absolute. But that's not the issue.

I said rights apply equally to all, not that they were absolute. Stop squirming.

I didn't say he didn't have the right. I said he was exploiting his right.

How do you "exploit" a right? You either have a right or you don't. He was exercising his, not exploiting.

Also, I don't know where you get off saying I don't have the right to be offended. First of all, I'm not offended, someone else is.

Oh relax. The generic "you".

Second, either someone is or is not offended, it has nothing to do with rights.

Okay, so you agree on both points of that issue. Levant had a right to say what he did and the complainant does not have a right not to be offended.

Generally, I think it's wrong to offend people unless you have some other reason except for just being an *******.

He can be a posterior opening all he wants. It's none of the state's business.

Why not? You don't think telling racist or bigoted jokes creates hate?

I don't think what he did constitutes a hate crime. The laws agree.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think there is a good argument to be made that those cartoons are not satire, as they have no other value than to demean the followers of a certain religion. Satire has a certain intent.

I think the point has been lost in translation.

The cartoons were not published just because some dude thought he'd get a kick out of insulting the Muslims. They were published after an author couldn't get an illustrator for a book about Muhammed's life, recieving rejections that referred to the murder of Theo van Gogh in Holland and the assault on a university teacher who had dared reading from the Koran as a non-believer. Also, there was the stand-up comedian who said he was afraid of making a joke dealing with Islam.

Kidicious, if you think dealing with this problem is not a matter for satirical artists, ask yourself if you'd ever condemn those people for making a satirical move against neo-Nazis who had assaulted people they didn't like and intimidated the rest. Keep in mind Danish neo-Nazis constitute a minority that is much weaker than the Muslim population (or we could say the amount of Muslims who specifically subscribe to Islamism, just to underline I acknowledge a difference) both in terms of numbers and political power. In other words, since they're certainly not the establishment, that means satire is off-limits, right?

No, I bet you'd say satire was fully justified in that case. You'd be right too.

[Wezil]

Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, February 15, 2008
It came as a surprise to hear Syed Soharwardy say he will drop his human rights commission complaint against Ezra Levant.

We applaud it, of course, and also that he says he's prepared to work with Levant to have Alberta's human rights act modified, so that it sticks to its original purposes -- eliminating discrimination in employment and rentals -- and can't be used to silence opinions some groups don't want to hear.

Soharwardy is apparently serious. He attributes his complaint nearly two years ago to a misguided attempt to encourage Muslim youths who he believes felt alienated, after Levant's Western Standard published controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.

Of course, it is not the government's job to mend anybody's feelings, only to decide whether they have been bona fide victims of discrimination in a fairly narrow area of jurisdiction. And that Soharwardy could so easily use the law for a purpose other than that for which it was intended, vindicates those who have complained that it favours frivolous or malicious complaints.

At the time, he says, he didn't fully appreciate what free-speech rights meant to people in this country. Now, having listened to Canadian Civil Liberties Association general counsel Alan Borovoy on his recent visit to Calgary, and some close friends, he says he gets it.

Soharwardy told the Herald editorial board Tuesday, "I think freedom of speech is one of the most important benefits of living in Canada, and we should protect it. I think the mandate of the Alberta Human Rights Commission should be limited -- Section 3 (1) (that makes it an offence to publish something likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt) should be gone."

Well, well.

There could be an element of enlightened self-interest of course, Soharwardy having made a few borderline statements himself. To compare Palestinian people's travails to the Holocaust, or to characterize Christian relief efforts after a tsunami hit Indonesia as kidnapping Muslim children, is to drink deeply from free speech's well. Those who do so, should by no means try to keep others from the water.

It does leave one bit of unfinished business, though.

Even if Levant feels he has won the argument -- he has, in our view -- it has cost him a lot of money to do it. (Human rights complaints are free to the complainant, but defendants are obliged to fund their own counsel.) As he has remarked, the process is as much the punishment as the ruling.

No less of a chill to the free expression of opinion is the possibility that even if the case is later dropped, it might still be costly to prepare for a defence that will ultimately not be required.

Striking Section 3 (1) from the act should be a priority for the provincial government, whose creature the legislation is. Until that is done, it seems elementary justice that defendants should expect their costs to be met, if the case fails to proceed -- or, if they are exonerated.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=e82b958c-e1b1-402d-804a-52c748bb77dd

[Monk]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think there is a good argument to be made that those cartoons are not satire, as they have no other value than to demean the followers of a certain religion. Satire has a certain intent.

Oh, and when I said 'lost in translation' before, I was thinking about some intent on part of the cartoonists you probably haven't recognised.

At least one cartoon cannot reasonably be supposed to demean the Muslims - that's the one I mentioned previously with the writing on the blackboard saying the staff at the newspaper are a bunch of reactionaries. Two other cartoons suggest the author Kåre Bluitgen reported his troubles to draw attention (no pun intended) to that book he was writing. I bet if more Muslims had seen and understood these twelve drawings, they would be much less enraged than was the case.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil
I said rights apply equally to all, not that they were absolute. Stop squirming.

Your language, both now and before, leads one to think that you think that this man has an absolute right to free speech.

How do you "exploit" a right? You either have a right or you don't. He was exercising his, not exploiting.

You exploit a right, but excercising your right in away that is harmfull to others and/or society. Rights are granted to benefit individuals/society, not just for your amusement or any other contrary reason.

Second, either someone is or is not offended, it has nothing to do with rights.

Okay, so you agree on both points of that issue. Levant had a right to say what he did and the complainant does not have a right not to be offended.

For what reason do you find it beneficial that people do not have a right to be offended. I don't understand that. Please try some other language to make your point.

He can be a posterior opening all he wants. It's none of the state's business.

Everything is the state's business. It's the publics business as well as it effects them. If he didn't want to have business he shouldn't be in the newspaper "business."

I don't think what he did constitutes a hate crime. The laws agree.

I didn't say it was a hate crime. I just said it was disgusting.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Monk


I think the point has been lost in translation.

The cartoons were not published just because some dude thought he'd get a kick out of insulting the Muslims. They were published after an author couldn't get an illustrator for a book about Muhammed's life, recieving rejections that referred to the murder of Theo van Gogh in Holland and the assault on a university teacher who had dared reading from the Koran as a non-believer. Also, there was the stand-up comedian who said he was afraid of making a joke dealing with Islam.

Kidicious, if you think dealing with this problem is not a matter for satirical artists, ask yourself if you'd ever condemn those people for making a satirical move against neo-Nazis who had assaulted people they didn't like and intimidated the rest. Keep in mind Danish neo-Nazis constitute a minority that is much weaker than the Muslim population (or we could say the amount of Muslims who specifically subscribe to Islamism, just to underline I acknowledge a difference) both in terms of numbers and political power. In other words, since they're certainly not the establishment, that means satire is off-limits, right?

No, I bet you'd say satire was fully justified in that case. You'd be right too.

OMFG Monk. If the cartoons were directed at terrorists or extremist that would be one thing, just as if they were directed at neo-nazis in particular. But they are directed towards the entire religion. What the hell man?

[DinoDoc]

Who cares if they are as racist and bigoted as you allege, Kid? Freedom of Speech allows for things like that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Who cares if they are as racist and bigoted as you allege, Kid? Freedom of Speech allows for things like that.

Encouraging hate speech is no way to protect freedom of speech. Not in Europe, Canada or anywhere else. If you like your rights so much, use them responsibly, not recklessly. Don't be a dumb ass.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Kidicious


OMFG Monk. If the cartoons were directed at terrorists or extremist that would be one thing, just as if they were directed at neo-nazis in particular. But they are directed towards the entire religion. What the hell man?

And just how do you reach that conclusion that they're about the religion in general, or that most of them are? I already pointed out one is obviously directed at the newspaper in which it was published, and that's just one example.