Canadian Magazine Publishes Muhammad Cartoons

[ollie]

Western Canadian magazine publishes Muhammad cartoons

Ezra Levant of the Western Standard told CBC Newsworld that he published the dozen cartoons in Monday's edition because they are "the central fact in the largest news story of the month.

"I'm doing something completely normal. I'm publishing the centre of a controversy. That's what news magazines do."

[snip]

He said news organizations are more than willing to publish items that Christians find offensive because Christians only react by writing a letter to the editor.

"They don't bomb embassies and behead journalists," Levant said.

"Don't tell me the CBC respects religion. It's afraid of one religion."

I don't think Levant's point is totally without merit.

[deranger]

I supppose, but why fan the flames? And just how far would the Western Standard be willing to go to publish something it thought Christians were offended by? Joking about Jesus or whatever, isn't a direct insult to the religion based on its' tenants. But re-printing images of a prophet is for Islam. What if it were the equivelant on the offensive meter for Christians, like Jesus using a cross to pleasure Mary Magdellen? A bet that would start something more than a letter writing campaign. Is it really that hard to respect the wishes of a religion by doing something as simple as not reprinting offensive images?

Is it any surprise to anyone that it weould be a rag like the Western Standard that would do it?

[ollie]

I like the idea that this is the "central fact in the largest news story of the month." I think there's a fine line between co-towing to fanatical demands and not wanting to offend the members of a religion. I'm still trying to sort out where that line is.

And I believe he's partially right when he asserts that fear is at the heart of the editorial decision not the print the cartoons. I believe there is some altruism in the decision of most Canadian editors not to run the cartoons but I think there's fear as well.

It's the fear part that has me worried. When you stop doing things, or start doing other things, out of fear you set a dangerous precedent.

[AD]

I think his argument is totally valid. Although I don't like how he dragged other media outlets into it with allegations. He could have appeared much more professional by leaving it at 'It's the biggest story in the world right now.'

AD

[Deeps]

I say print them.

It'll be interesting to see the Canadian Muslim reaction.

Hopefully the passive nature of Canada usurps the whole hyper-religious stone thrower thing.

Not holding my breath, but optimistic.

Deeps

[d_rawk]

I will admit off the bat that I have a tendency to take the opposite possition of Levant from the get-go, sometimes simply because he has taken whatever position. Which isn't a good thing. But he has caused me enough distress in the past, that it is nearly automatic.

My feelings on this are basically that a description of the cartoons are adequate (the position taken by CBC and other media outlets), and that given that depictions of Mohammed are considered blasphemous (whether there is actual precedent for that or not) is the contemporary prevailing opinion, it is probably worth respecting. We all have the internet, we've all seen the images, so there is not much need to for them to be replicated *unless* you are trying to stir shit up or show your utter disregard for the deeply felt convictions of others.

I mean, if a newspaper *could* print "Jesus sucks baby cock" as a headline, it doesn't mean that they *should* print "Jesus sucks baby cock" as a headline. The reaction to this incident both from the side enraged by it (violent riots and calls for the murder of the Dutch [and I am Dutch, if that helps]) and the reaction by those from the oppossing side ("we can -- so we should") drive me nuts.

It wasn't the initial publication that caused the problems, but rather the subsequent replication for the sole sake of replication that caused all the violence. Freedom of speech is important and needs to be vigilantly protected. But this isn't about that, and some ubber-conservative Xians seem to be hiding behind the one as an excuse for alterior motives (even while they lash out against freedom of expression in other circumstances that suit them less well, which I suppose is why it drives me so fucking crazy).

[ollie]

I mean, if a newspaper *could* print "Jesus sucks baby cock" as a headline, it doesn't mean that they *should* print "Jesus sucks baby cock" as a headline. The reaction to this incident both from the side enraged by it (violent riots and calls for the murder of the Dutch [and I am Dutch, if that helps]) and the reaction by those from the oppossing side ("we can -- so we should") drive me nuts.

I think there's a middle ground opinion, which I'm trying to formulate, that doesn't think we should print the cartoons just because we can but that we should print the cartoons in order to exercise our freedom of expression.

If I can liken it to the Arctic sovereignty claims, it's the same idea whereby if we don't execrcise our sovereignty we lose it. Shit, the same could be said for all personal rights really. If we don't exercise them then they disappear.

Again, the cartoons shouldn't be printed for the sake of it but to print them as an accompanying resource to a major world news story is, I think, legit.

I'm also not so naive to think that the Western Standard doesn't have an agenda, at least judging by the offhand remarks in this thread. But I agree with their stated reasons in the CBC article.

[Birdy]

i tend to agree with d_rawk on this one. truly the intent of the intial publication was not an exercise of freedom of speech, but rather a wide spectrum shot at Islam. to keep reprinting the cartoons is like a continuing slap in the face.

freedom of speech is what we political cronies and hippies have turned this into. instead of seeing the cartoons reprinted, i'd rather see an intelligent article that identifies the cause and the case.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Levant's a total jackass, in my experience, so him doing this just pushes that sense even further.

I mean, the protest in Canada by Muslims has been decent and respectful; in fact, the only violence so far has been by anti-Muslim "activists" in Montreal, and the Muslims there have gone on record that they're now afraid. So is he trying to push some wingnut over the edge so that he can then conflate said wingnut with all Muslims? wtf?

In the words of Jello Biafra, can't they be treated as they're asking "just out of a little fucking respect"? By coming up with examples of what "they" might do to similarly offend "us" seems like a big blown up version of whatever that game is where you and buddy punch one another in the arm until one gives in.

[StaggerLee]

Sure, the cartoons are the centre of a big news story, but as d rawk said, the descriptions of the cartoons are adequate, and the cartoons are easy to find on the internet if one really feels the need to see them. This Levant guy is obviously fanning the flames under the guise of just doing his job as a reporter. He does little to hide his agenda when he says:

Christians only react by writing a letter to the editor.

"They don't bomb embassies and behead journalists," Levant said.

This is what gets me. The implication that Christians are civilized and peace-loving while Muslims are violent savages. What about abortion clinics that have been bombed and doctors that have been shot? What about the vast majority of Muslims who have protested these cartoons peacefully?

As Dr. Evil Mouse said, the demonstrations held by Muslims in Canada have all been peaceful. A person's likelihood of using violence as a means has less to do with religion more to do with their access to political, social, and economic power.

[ollie]

Sure, the cartoons are the centre of a big news story, but as d rawk said, the descriptions of the cartoons are adequate, and the cartoons are easy to find on the internet if one really feels the need to see them.

I don't agree with this part. A magazine article should be self-contained. Unless I'm sitting at my computer while reading the magazine, a link to the offending pictures doesn't cut it. Imagine picking up a ten year old magazine and finding that a key piece of information is sitting at the end of a dead link. Not to even mention people without internet access.

[ollie]

Should bookstores stop selling The Satanic Verses?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Hmm... the problem thickens. We do have this cultural angle on religion that treats it as something appropriate to the private sphere, where general news media belong to the public. That distinction isn't there in Islam (though Canadian Muslims do by and large understand it and live with it).

I don't expect that these cartoons are going to do anything to promote idolatry of Muhammad. This issue is about frayed nerves and the escalation of disrespect, and every step that's taken to bring the discussion away from that seems to aggravate things even worse.

What, to draw another parallel, do people think about running still images from Paul Bernardo's video collection? That was pretty newsworthy stuff, too. What kept them from being printed in spite of freedom of speech arguments?

But back to the Muhammad thing - it reminds me of a CBC TV report on the hippies in Yorkville (I think - it might have been Vancouver, but I'm pretty sure it was Yorkville) in the late 1960s, which took a fairly sympathetic view of them. It was so sympathetic, in fact, that the producers cross-faded a shot of one head with that classic Jesus painting before the fadeout. Apparently that one little snippet elicited more letters of complaint to the CBC than anything they had ever run.

[ollie]

What, to draw another parallel, do people think about running still images from Paul Bernardo's video collection? That was pretty newsworthy stuff, too. What kept them from being printed in spite of freedom of speech arguments?

Touche.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'd gotten to wondering what makes Westerner's shout out, "Religion's one thing, but that shit ain't funny." I'm kind of surprised now that that comparison isn't more front and centre.

Ezra Levant's about to be interviewed on CBC's The Current in a few minutes, if you're near a radio.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

... Levant managed to completely confirm my impressions of him as a total jackass. I thought the Citizen editor did pretty well, considering that Levant barely let him get a word in edgewise.

It seems the Current archives their shows, so that interview will probably be up by tomorrow morning.

[SmoothedShredder]

Looks like things have reached a boiling point yet again. The cartoons aren't so much important anymore. One was right... they could of just as easily looked at the movie Team America and drawn the same conclusions. What is important is that a catalyst was used, and the chain reaction has started. It will be interesting to see how long it'll continue and for how long we will continue to see images like these:

Canada holds a unique position on this issue, if only for the strong voice of the Canadian Muslium Community and their support of non-violence in order to protest Western Hate Propaghanda.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Canada holds a unique position on this issue, if only for the strong voice of the Canadian Muslium Community and their support of non-violence in order to protest Western Hate Propaghanda.

You're quite right there - that's one of the things that pisses me off about Ezra Levant being such a lunkhead: he's going to do damage to moderates within the Muslim community here who might otherwise be able to make a difference.

I mean, listening to Levant, you'd think he'd been weaned on Carl Schmitt (see esp. his thoughts in The Concept of the Political) - screw moderation, in other words, define your friends and enemies, and get down to the dirty business.

Where's that pic of the KFC from, btw? It's a wonder they keep opening franchises up around the world, for the number that keep getting burned down for different reasons (last I'd heard was one being attacked by Hindu fundamentalists in India a couple of years back).

[ollie]

Mmm... Ezra.

Windows Media Video from CTV.ca

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Thanks for that, ollie. What a colossally abrasive jackass. He's coming off even worse than he did on CBC this morning.

He came armed, though. That comment about Elmasry calling for the death of Jews in Israel over 18 is pretty well documented (if only superficially so).

Transcript Of Dr. Mohamed Elmasry's Remarks On Michel Coren Show

More useful still, the full transcript

He does go on to make a distinction between terrorism and the sort of acts he considers legitimate, but I can't see it holding much water (nor would I ever want to or feel qualified to make any such distinctions myself).

There seems, though, to be no attention drawn to the fact that the Canadian Jewish Congress guy resigned over comments he himself had made on the same Michael Coren show ( The other side of the Elmasry affair ).

Either way, Levant's coming out and calling Elmasry an idiot [sic] and stupid [sic] on national TV (did you catch the stunned pause by the interviewer?) isn't going to get him far into anything but trouble.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Guest
More careful wording - geez, this sh!t's tricky.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Holy crap - now get a load of this!

Comments on Klein's wife spark new controversy for Western Standard

The comments were part of a column in the Western Standard magazine by writer Ric Dolphin. He suggested Colleen Klein wields too much influence over Premier Ralph Klein and his office.

The article says Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, above, is heavily influenced by his wife.

He then goes on to quote an unnamed source who said, "Once she [Colleen] stops being the premier's wife, she goes back to being just another Indian."

Klein's wife is Métis.

[SmoothedShredder]

Mmm... Ezra.

Windows Media Video from CTV.ca

WHAT A BONAFIDE IDIOT!!! This was my first impression... EZRA has a sandpaper effect when he talks. I hope I never hear him again.

[SmoothedShredder]

I mean, listening to Levant, you'd think he'd been weaned on Carl Schmitt (see esp. his thoughts in The Concept of the Political) - screw moderation, in other words, define your friends and enemies, and get down to the dirty business.

Where's that pic of the KFC from, btw? It's a wonder they keep opening franchises up around the world, for the number that keep getting burned down for different reasons (last I'd heard was one being attacked by Hindu fundamentalists in India a couple of years back).

Really, I didn't get the Nazi Supreme Ruler over all laws tip from Levant... More the "It's free speech, I can say whatever I want, you can say whatever you want, you said you though is just, I REALLY don't like that, I can say what I want, did I mention I was Jewish, I can change the channel" a good point out of the mouth of an ass.

I think that's why I like music so much... study of tones and tone inflection. Body languange, says so much, and Ezra said way more than just words.

I'm sorry, I forgot where I got the KFC link... it's a huge building though eh? And totally destroyed. Sad... ish.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Really, I didn't get the Nazi Supreme Ruler over all laws tip from Levant... More the "It's free speech, I can say whatever I want, you can say whatever you want, you said you though is just, I REALLY don't like that, I can say what I want, did I mention I was Jewish, I can change the channel" a good point out of the mouth of an ass.

That was certainly his line that he kept going back to, like a hypnotic mantra, but it's such a useless abstraction that I have to wonder what else is going on - again, I have to ask whether that same value would be thrown around in the case of the Bernardo images, which were again a central and decisive matter for a very long time.

I don't think Levant would be uncomfortable with an ubermensch, as long as it was his ubermensch. No, where I see Schmitt being relevant is in the core political dichomotomy he makes between friends and enemies. This is precisely what made him so appealing to the Nazis, for whom he ended up working. As for him being Jewish, that's probably of no substantive importance (except maybe among old-school racists in his readership); Jews can be fascists too (Einstein said as much). I would have just hoped for a little more sensitivity, but if he happens to think the sun shines out of his ass because he thinks his God says so, that's another matter.

I think that's why I like music so much... study of tones and tone inflection. Body languange, says so much, and Ezra said way more than just words.

Absolutely. I got a kick out of this interview because my dissertation was in Conversation Analysis; this would have been a great case study (again, that stunned silence from the interviewer was completely uncommon; they're trained never to pause for so long, which makes me think that Levant had really crossed the line there).

I'm sorry, I forgot where I got the KFC link... it's a huge building though eh? And totally destroyed. Sad... ish.

Yeah, the violence just ain't right. I sat down with my eldest yesterday afternoon to start watching Gandhi, after she'd told me about an intervention into a fight at school that had gone wrong. I'm still waiting for the next Gandhi to emerge from the Muslim world. I'm sure there are a lot of Muslim anxious to see one too.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Guest
spelling

[Alexis]

i know i'm jumping in late here but oh well...

i think that the whole reason these cartoons are being reprinted isn't because of freedom of expression, it's about someone telling us we can't or shouldn't. just because we CAN doesn't mean we SHOULD...but if someone tells us we CAN'T when we CAN then we damn bloody well WILL.

it's like the whole topless issue a few years ago. i'm sure women went topless before it was legal. no big deal. then someone said we couldn't. and a bunch of people protested, and the law got changed so that we could, legally. it wasn't until someone said we couldn't go around topless that we shoved our ta tas in everyone's face. now that the controversy is over, it's no big deal again and you certainly don't see women walking around topless en masse.