Touchy is as touchy does.

I most certainly didn’t take your comment out of context, and entirely recognize that tongue was firmly stuck up the cheek as regards your grandma. But there are those who take that particular view (like our respective grandmas) so I suppose my last comment was directed more towards them.

At your expense, no doubt.

As for tact, well… there just ain’t no accounting for good upbringing, is there?

NBRob: you sum up everything up quite nicely.

What concerned me is that mainstream media denied people the chance to decide for themselves whether or not the cartoons were offensive. Someone already mentioned Sinead O’Connor’s Pope incident. The difference w/ Ms. O’Connor is that her video was on national television for days afterwards. We all had a chance to form an opinion. I also remember the images of angry Ontarians burning the Quebec flag on television in the 1990s. The media showed that image repeatedly, which clearly offended many Quebecois.

After the cartoon incident, I remember searching the web for a while looking for these cartoons. I figured that something causing this much of a ruckus must be worth a look. It took a while to find them at first, but w/ some digging, I found them. Without the Internet, I would never have seen the images, because our media willfully withdrew the images. The Western Standard saw an opportunity to fill a void in our print media, and printed the images.

Ezra Levant made an editorial decision. He is now being made to answer to a Government agency. You have boil the issue down, and ignore all the baggage that is introduced to the debate when you bring in Islam. We also need to ignore any douchebaggery Ezra Levant brings to the table. We need to ask ourselves whether our society is so fragile that we need to censor some fairly mild offensive cartoons.

Anyways, love the blog, and your Fredericton show at the Playhouse last year was probably the best concert I’ve seen in a very long time. Come back soon.

Ha,ha,ha,ha. I was looking for the brain dead quote of the day, and thank you for providing it. Being against American foreign policy does not mean your anti-American, but for some people thats hard to see.
And in such a narrow framework, i can almost see how you think that talking instead of bombing is cuddling up to Islamofascists. Except that Islamofascism is actually an oversimplification of the root causes of terrorism. Its popular with the main stream media, or those looking to find a catch phrase, or the terminaly brain dead. What it is is propaganda. Plain and simple. Instead of spouting banalities, perhaps refrain from simply attacking what you don’t seem to understand and do some reading on the matter.

Quoting shiftyrichard:

While I very much favour free speech, I do believe people abuse their right to free speech by using it as a shield whenever they spew something hateful or intentionally hurtful.
No, information should not be censured. But what did publishing the cartoons accomplish?
As an aside, libelous statements can be classified as free speech (technically)… Does this afford people the right to outright lie in a way that will damage another person emotionally, not to mention their reputation?

As for words like “fuck”, I couldn’t give a shit if people cursed. Just try not to do it around my grandmother:)

See, there’s the problem, RIchard. Everything depends on one’s own sense of propriety. You don’t give a fuck if people swear. Well, what if I do? What if it goes against my own deeply held moral and religious beliefs?

Then you, sir, should be silenced. I says so.

Silver (and, unfortunately - unfortunately because I otherwise despise that man - , Levant have it right. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend.

Otherwise anyone could choose to be offended by pretty much anything. Isn’t that right, Richard?

A tad touchy, wouldn’t you say?
A minor clarification: the last part was a lame literary joke, not a serious point of view. As for your final point, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, there seems to be a serious lack of common sense these days (for offenders and those easily offended). I am by no means suggesting a muzzle… just a little more tact.

Thanks for taking my post out of context, though. Anybody can win an argument when they skew the opposing message.

Well said my good man

You leap from, snide reference to the National Post = criticizing Israel, straight to criticizing Israel = anti-Semitism. I love the last leap , especially in a post about free speech. I mean your tone ensures no one will take you serious since you seem to have a warped and overtly bigoted world view, IMO

i suggest you read: “Our Unfree Press: 100 Years of Radical Media Criticism”

Levant has gone on record a number of other times prior to this HRC crap and basically stated that the cartoons were newsworthy and he had a duty to publish them. World wide riots having been attributed to them is reason enough for Canadians being given the option to inform themselves about them.

Some would argue (including 98% of the anemic print media in this country) that it’s better to keep your readers safely ignorant and docile than to risk offending a group of people who threaten you. I say, screw you, I’ll decide for myself. Just give me the opportunity.

It’s damn lucky we have blogs now.

For all the talk of we as a free people choosing not to be censored by fear and violence, not a mention was made of the vast majority that are nonviolent Muslims, who were simply offended by seeing the prophet Mohammed depicted in the first place, as goes against their beliefs. Was the image so detrimental to our understanding of the world that we had to - against all odds, it seemed - shine it like a beacon from every post in the press, making refusal to do so tantamount to surrender?

Just because someone is offended by something doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to offend them. But it doesn’t mean you have to either, or that you should, especially for something so meaningless as a broad stereotype. For me, it merely highlighted the hysterics of “provocative” morons who try to be offensive for offense’s sake, probably because they don’t have the brains or the sensibility to do much else.

In the case of Mr. Levant, “freedom of speech” is not the motive for his behaviour, but rather acts as cover for his motive. Such is the case with, say, a neo-Nazi who screams “White Power!”, then claims he did so as a matter of “freedom of speech”. I can’t imagine someone saying something simply because s/he is free to say it: otherwise, these depictions of the Prophet Muhammad would be irrelevant to Mr. Levant.

As for the “Islamophobe i.e. someone who objects to having their transport blown up on the way to work”, ask the people overseas how they feel about their neighbourhoods being reduced to ruin by foreign invaders.

“For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values,” - Ezra Levant, interrogated for publishing cartoons of Muhammad in Canada.

While I very much favour free speech, I do believe people abuse their right to free speech by using it as a shield whenever they spew something hateful or intentionally hurtful.
No, information should not be censured. But what did publishing the cartoons accomplish?
As an aside, libelous statements can be classified as free speech (technically)… Does this afford people the right to outright lie in a way that will damage another person emotionally, not to mention their reputation?

As for words like “fuck”, I couldn’t give a shit if people cursed. Just try not to do it around my grandmother:)

See, there’s the problem, RIchard. Everything depends on one’s own sense of propriety. You don’t give a fuck if people swear. Well, what if I do? What if it goes against my own deeply held moral and religious beliefs?

Then you, sir, should be silenced. I says so.

Silver (and, unfortunately - unfortunately because I otherwise despise that man - , Levant have it right. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend.

Otherwise anyone could choose to be offended by pretty much anything. Isn’t that right, Richard?

As for words like “fuck”, I couldn’t give a shit if people cursed. Just try not to do it around my grandmother:)

“Obviously, I am never going to disagree that the imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech or the press is anything but troublesome, with a few exceptions of course, those being when privately funded media outlets are used for propaganda purposes by foreign interests.”

I totally agree with you… the National Post should have to answer to these charges. :)

I assume that you are referring to Israel in your snide reference to the National Post? Thank God for Israel otherwise you lefty GTA poseurs wouldn’t have an outlet for your latent anti-Semitism.

The imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech is more than just ‘troublesome’, it’s an unconstitutional transgression of our inalienable rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Charter. I’d go so far as to say that the HRC’s are really just pandering to political correctness that decades of Liberal government have tried to shove down our throats.

To those of you here who find Steyn and Levant unpalatable, it’s immaterial, but to be fair, I feel the same way about Naomi Klein (now there is a shameless self-promoter - wonder what she does with the profits from her books?) and Linda McQuaig (who doesn’t receive book royalties because no literate person would read her trash). At least Steyn and Levant have a sense of humour which is more than I can say for the boiler-suit wearing crowd you seem to be cheering for. It’s no accident that they (Klein and her Klones) will never be called upon to defend our right to a free press and free speech - they’re too busy cuddling up to the Islamofacists and pathological anti-American crowd to notice.

I love your music Matt, but some of your fans…ugh.

Here’s the problem I have with all of this. If those cartoons were about Jesus or Israel, people may have been offended or upset, but they would have never threated violence the way that so many Muslims did after the cartoons in question were published. Using violence to respond to being offended is wrong.

Islamic people burn effegies of American and British leaders all the time. Many western media outlets have published cartoons that mock god or Jesus. In fact, some of the best Far Side cartoons were about God. I don’t recall seeing any Catholics riot over that. Protest and complain, perhaps, but not threaten or use violence.

Levant is indeed a shit disturber, but I would rather live next door to a right wing opportunistic journalist than a militant Islamic follower that threatens to kill me everytime I insult him.

Hmm.. Well I can see your point and I dont see it, all at the same time. I think what is most prevelant to me is this: When Sinead O’Conner tore the picture of the Pope in half.. a hail storm of shit fell on her. She was boo’d off of stages, as a perfomer I can never imagine the humilation that must have felt like, her records were thrown into streets and then steam rolled.. she had death threats against.. And this is all from Christian people. Now, I don’t agree with her actions or thoughts, but I do respect her right to have/do them. And no, people didnt take to the streets and kill because she did do it.. but you are forgetting the Northen Ireland conflict where they are killing each other off left and right over religion. But thats another topic all together.

Now a majority of Muslims didn’t find the cartoon of Mohammed, myself being one of them, offensive but some did. In the Islamic religion there are no pictures of Mohammed.. the reason being is that a main pillar of our faith is that we have no idols.. we worship none other then Allah. And Allah means God.. for those that dont know. So I can see why they are/were offended. Now in NO way do I condone violence as a form of *getting your point* acros.. Violence is a action of fear, always. But to a group of people who fear everyday of their lives, and yes they do.. I cant name one person I know in my homeland of Iran or in Afghanistan who do not live in fear.. all they know is violence.. its sad, but true and not at all a excuse.. but its their reality.. and faith is all they have, twisted or not, its what they have that can never be taken.. and most people will defend that do the death.

So if I meandered a bit, but i’m a little tattered brained right now.

This issue is partly about free speech and partly about the incompatibility of 7th century cultural norms in a 21st century world. If Islam and the West are to co-exist then Islam must come to realize that people are going to say and do things that are going to offend you and you just have to deal with it.

Not every Muslim was protesting in the streets or hurling bombs, but many were doing this, mostly at the behest of Imans. The whole event was orchestrated by Imans from Denmark (living there as refugees mind you) who traveled to Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan and stirred up the passions of the faithful.

Muslims seems to have no problem with free speech when it involves advocating violence and praising the ‘The Magnificent 19′ in London, or when passing out copies of the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.

Just like the Christian fascists in the West who wish to impose a theocracy complete with executions for adulterers these Islamists are attempting to destroy the free societies that we as liberals cherish. This is not a race issue, Muslims are not a race of people anymore than Catholics are a race of people. As an aside it is interesting that no one protests when Shia Muslims blow up a Sunni Mosque, in comparison the publication of some cartoons in a Danish newspaper that no one reads illustrates the sheer lunacy of this episode.

It is a failing of liberalism to critique those who may have no interest in the goals of a free society. Once again Popper said it best. “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” Karl Popper

Read the wikipedia entry on this event for more details. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

Thanks for letting me rant.

There’s a difference between freedom of speech, and being offensive.

No, there isn’t. Offensive speech is a subset of free speech.

I guarantee you I can find lots of people who think that a line from “Rico” is offensive. Does that mean that we should censor Mr. Good because some people find the word “fuck” offensive?

Fuck no.