Kartoon Kontroversy Kontinues

This Danish cartoon thing just doesn't go away. (Funniest take on it in the headline here.)

The more I have been thinking about this -- and believe me, I have thought (and argued) about this at length -- the more inclined I am to believe that the media should have run at least one of the cartoons. A few were innocuous enough. The ones that paint all 1.3 billion followers of Islam as terrorists -- or which portray the Prophet Mohammad as a suicide bomber -- were totally out of line and, to my mind, border on hate. That's why, two weeks ago, I objected to the right-wing blogburst on this. Most of it was about stoking the so-called ''war on terror,'' and not so much about freedom of expression.

Anyway, that's just this woman's opinion and, if you've been following my scribbling on this subject, that is about as close as I have come to actually stating it -- only because it took me a long time to formulate it.

Over the weekend, the National Post's Robert Fulford wrote a column (sub. req'd) titled Blasphemy has set us free -- and to be honest, it's tough to take issue with his argument that

We may not be able to prove George Bernard Shaw's claim that all great truths begin as blasphemies. Still, it's closer to accuracy than the opposite, which would be something like: When in doubt, consult the authorities. As we know too well, the authorities often get it wrong. History demonstrates the priceless value of blasphemy. That's one reason why anyone now trying to revive anti-blasphemy laws should be seen as an enemy of progress as well as an enemy of freedom.

His column appeared alongside an editorial (sub. req'd.) knocking the media for publishing photos of torture from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison that turned up in the Aussie press last week.

What explains the different responses? The obvious answer is that the Abu Ghraib images are seen as an indictment of America's war on Islamist terrorism -- unlike the cartoons, which attacked Islamist terrorism itself. When the target is America, the same media navel-gazers who urged outlets to act "responsibly" two weeks ago are now lecturing us about the need to hold Washington's power-brokers to account. Never mind that, in Gaza, Karachi and Beirut, the likely effect will be the same: more riots, more threats and more jihad.

Who will be blamed for it all? Take a guess.

Note that the Post published neither the photos nor the offending cartoons.

Today on its editorial page however, an editorial (sub. req'd.) written In defence of the Western Standard which published eight of the cartoons in its Feb. 27 issue.

Last week, the Calgary-based Western Standard newsmagazine published eight of the 12 Danish cartoons that allegedly blaspheme the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Some Muslim groups responded by demanding the magazine be charged with hate crimes, and by applying to have its senior staff hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Commission. In the interest of protecting freedom of expression, both Alberta's Department of Justice and the province's rights investigators must reject these demands summarily.

So which is it? Publish and be damned -- or not publish and damn those who complain about the publishing?

Can you say suck and blow?

Just below the editorial, a Lorne Gunter column, Of course, we support free speech but ...

 

Free speech is not just the right to say "Good morning!," it is also the right to say "Sod off!" Or "Your god is nuts." We are in danger of losing it if we permit it to be limited by what others find either worthy or inoffensive.

Passing judgment on the Western Standard's decision, one letter writer to the Vancouver Province insisted "I agree with freedom of the press, but this publisher is not demonstrating that principle," because the cartoons have "absolutely no press value." Instead, the magazine should "publish something that has some literary value."

But where is the philosopher king who can say with certainty what has "press value" and "literary value?"

I for one will not compromise my freedom to the mobs in the Muslim world, nor the Western world's purveyors of PC.

Fine. What are you doing about it?

On a somewhat related matter: Here's my treeware column today, a look at the business consequences for the Western Standard.

"I think that when you're a little magazine that's not part of a big chain, when you don't have a big marketing budget and when you're located in Calgary, maybe you're not taken so seriously as a journalism enterprise,'' the former advisor to Stockwell Day says. "In the long run I think we helped to establish ourselves as a serious magazine that will take risks for our editorial. I think that's one way we differentiate ourselves and we compete with people much bigger."

Since this blog bears the <i>Star</i>'s banner, I can't publish the cartoons. I can't even directly link to them. This decision was taken at upper levels.

Besides, we are the <i>Star</i> which means we all have the Atkinson Principles -- and its multi-culti values -- tattooed on our butts. Fine with me. At least we are upfront about our values, and they almost always work in favour of building a better Canada.

That said, it would appear that a majority of Canadian journalists believe that our media should have published them. But then, we don't run the corporations that control the presses and airwaves, do we?

I would have published at least one of the cartoons.

And with this, I am soooooooooo done with this subject...unless there are real developments.

 

 

Comments

[Bill- Muskoka]

Antonia,

I am surprised no one picked up on the Olympic aspects of the Abu Ghraib pic showing the prisoner sandwiched between two stretchers.

He looked like he was practicing for the Skeleton competition, even ready for the flip side, eh?

Likewise, all the fuss about publishing the cartoons here is a moot point. Anyone CAN, could have published them. No RCMP task Force will be bashing down their doors, arresting them, and sending them away to some foreign nation island to never be heard from again.

That is true Freedom of the Press. I wish people would learn the difference.

Granted, the pics of the American coffins coming back DID draw arrests, court martials, and the ire of the GOVERNMENT of The United States. So, where are the whiners about the Freedom of the Press in the land where its part of their Constitution?

Again, the Western Standard made a choice. An informed choice. If they face Hate Crime prosecution it will be because they committed a Hate Crime in accordance with the laws of Canada.

Actions do have consequences. Sane people seriously consider them before acting. I wonder if Ezra would have been such a strong proponent of freedom of expression were he not sitting on his arse safely in Canada?

Sounds to me, when I read statements like this "I for one will not compromise my freedom to the mobs in the Muslim world, nor the Western world's purveyors of PC." by Lorne Gunter, That there is a serious Don Quioxte problem in some of the media.

[Stephen Reevess]

Maybe we should agree on a ban all "offensive"images of religious prophets,Mohammed,Buddha,Jesus,Abraham,even Scientology's Hubbard (don't want to upset Tom Cruise).

[sooey]

blahblah, yaddayadda. efrank's send-up of ezra levant: "ACHTUNG! der western standard" is funnier'n those dumbassed cartoons, anyway. frickin' danes. STICK TO CHEESE!!!

[sheena]

I walked thru Hyde Park last Saturday same day as Protest March #3 in London. Truth be told, it was all the ducks, swans, geese and pigeons that freaked me and had me fear for my well-being more than the Muslims on parade.

[Jay Currie]

Always good to see a good mind change Antonia.

However, it is too bad that you go on to suggest that it was the suits who quashed publication. Since when did corporations exercise that much editorial control - and where were the editors who were willing, as they were at the New York Press, to say "Publish or we quit."

The critical principle at stake in the Danish cartoons issue is whether or not editorial policy at Canadian newspapers and magazines is being dictated in the streets of Lahore and Gaza. If it is then we have no right to suggest we have a free press.

The Star, precisely because of the Atkinson Principles and its unique ownership structure could have and should have been in the front lines of providing its readers with the images themselves and letting those readers make up their own minds. Anything less is craven capitulation to the rabble rousing and fraud of a tiny minority in the Islamic world. And that is certainly not congruent with:

"On his death, Atkinson was so determined these principles be maintained that he bequeathed all his shares to the charitable foundation that bears his name. He wanted to be certain that the Star would be run by those "familiar with the doctrines and beliefs which I have promoted in the past" and that publication of The Star would "be conducted for the benefit of the public in the continued frank and full dissemination of news and opinions" and in such a manner as to preserve its role as a great "metropolitan newspaper."

Nothing "full and frank" about hiding some rather badly drawn cartoons.

[Donald-not-the-Duck]

I guess the question in its simplest form is about courage. One either has it or one does not. (And no I am not sure as to whether I do).

Europeans I guess previously had the expereince with appeasement and its consequences, that might also be why they are taking a stand on this.

As far as the cartoons go ... the one that is funny (probably because it is right on the money) is about the number of females in paradise and the fact that there are seemingly not enough left.

Donald-not-the-Duck

[Antonia]

Jay: Just to be clear. The decision was made in an EDITORAL meeting, not a corporate meeting. When i say upper levels, I mean upper from me.

[Randall Isaacs]

This is from Chapter 7 of the Hamas Charter:

The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

Here's the Charter in full. Personally, I find this a heck of a lot more offensive than some cartoons but it seems I'm the only one. In fact, according to the mainstream medias, the leaders of this organization are "pragmatists".

[Randall Isaacs]

Sorry, here is the missing link:

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

Now it's the found link.

[Antonia]

Randall, I allowed this one because it makes a point about disrespecting religions (and worse). But, as you know, I have said it a million times here: We will not solve the problems of the Middle East here. So kindly stay on topic or I will have to close the comments on this post. This applies to everybody on all sides of the political spectrum.

[Randall Isaacs]

Antonia: I included this post because it purports to quote the Prophet directly and I ask whether this is an accurate reflection of the Prophet's teachings. Based on what I am hearing about the cartoons, I would expect that people would clearly indicate that Hamas does not reflect the teachings or beliefs of Mohammed. I also include the link to the Hamas Charter to show that I did not pull one excerpt out of context. I understand your concerns but I believe that the Hamas Charter is highly relevant with respect to critiquing the cartoons as it deals with interpretations of Islam, respect towards other religions etc. and what should be the next steps for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

[Jinoole]

In the other related news, David Irving, a British historical researcher, was sentenced three years in Austrian court yesterday for simply uttering six unthinkable words: Holocaust did not happen.

[Colby Cosh]

Star staffers have the Atkinson Principles "tattooed on their butts"? Does that mean you can only read them backwards, in a mirror?

[Bill-Muskoka]

After reading this

'Harper fires spokesperson after early PR stumbles'-SUSAN DELACOURT AND SEAN GORDON OTTAWA BUREAU

"Stairs, however, was not blamed — at least externally — for the communications problems. He was seen more as the messenger of dubious news and the man who had to manage an almost-impossible relationship between the press and a Prime Minister who has made it clear he resents media criticism." in this morning's Star

Perhaps all the concern about what a foreign press did or did not do becomes rather unimportant. What sort of arse covering spin can we expect frpm our own PMO?

Let us not become like our neighbor and while tilting at the world's windmills with drawn sword, ignore the path we ourselves are travelling.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Jay Curie,

I think you simply want to see the cartoons, as many who have such a need make issue over them.

I have had no desire to see them, no need to be titilated by such tripe. I take the better course of learnijng about the Islamic nations, and have had the pleasure of knowing many fine Muslims.

Cartoons are great to bring a focus to an individual, either positive or negative. They serve very little purpose depicting a group, race, or religion. That is mere stereotyping. The exception would be a depiction of the millions starving or killed by the action, or inaction of a powerful individual or elite group of individuals.

[Darwin O'Connor]

It is not unreasonable for the National Post say it is wrong to publish the cartoons while saying it should not be illegal to publish them. Both are perfectly consistent with believing in free speech. You can express an opinion without imposing it on others.

[JDot]

Who cares about these pictures. All they are doing now is being used to manipulate people on both sides of the argument. But I'm glad someone in Canada printed them and I'm glad muslim protested peacefully adaints them. I don't know about this whole thing, free speach vs not offending people, always good to have robust debate on issues like this. Antonio I still think your far left. but I think you have definetly given good insight on this issue. And who cares what I think I'm just a lazy employee with a computer.

[Antonia]

Couple of things here:

Jinoole: That's four words, not six. And for the record about Irving ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,1714404,00.html

''Austria has Europe's toughest law criminalising denial of the Holocaust. Irving went on trial for two speeches he delivered in the country almost 17 years ago. He was arrested in November last year after returning to Austria to deliver more speeches despite an arrest warrant against him and being barred from the country.

''In the two 1989 speeches he termed the Auschwitz gas chambers a "fairytale" and insisted Adolf Hitler had protected the Jews of Europe. He referred to surviving death camp witnesses as "psychiatric cases", and asserted that there were no extermination camps in the Third Reich.''

Whether that should be a capital crime/felony is a whole other can of snakes.

Darwin ...

What I got from the Post is not that it's wrong but that's it's right -- and yet it didn't publish them. Did I not read that accurately??

And Colby?

I am very flexible. I don't need a mirror. And who says they're tattooed right side up anyway??

[Hockey Fan]

Welcome to Bizarro World. A world where up is down and down is up.

A World where the main stream media cowers behind tortured rationalizations and allows a tiny, democratic, peaceful country to be bullied and terrorized.

A World where crazed lunatics are incited to riot and kill over cartoons and the main stream media blames some newspapers and admonishes them to never do something like that again!

A world where death threats and bounties over cartoons are issued by demented leaders and the main steam media remains silent.

By any rational standards no one could be offended by these cartoons. By the standards of deranged zealots - yes. By the standards of normal, civilized people - no.

And yet,the main stream media has become so twisted by hatred for George Bush that they cannot even rouse themselves to defend free speech for fear that they will somehow be on the same side as the hated Americans!

The main stream media cannot be trusted to provide all the facts. Anyone who cannot bring themselves to defend a newspaper in Denmark and their right to print mildly provocative cartoons either has an advocacy agenda or is too lazy to get the facts for themselves.

[howard doughty]

If Allah has any sense of humour at all, he must be laughing himself silly at the manner in which his brain-dead followers are behaving. Like their Jewish and Christian co-believers, it will surely take Muslim extremists some time to get the elements of faith in a loving and merciful god into some coherent shape - and, even then, some backsliding is probably inevitable.

Looking back on the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch burnings and the Ku Klux Klan or, for the antiquarians among us, the genocidal treatment of the Midianites by Moses and his mob (cf. Numbers, ch. 31), the bronze age tribal god of Ibrahim must certainly require patience. In light of the seemingly unlimited capacity of his Jewish, Christian or Islamic true believers to mess things up, I cannot help but think that he is getting pretty weary of our collective zealotry.

Though not the most horrific incident in religious history, the toasted Danish cartoon caper is truly a sad story with, as yet, untold implications. It has, for example, been personally disconcerting for it has led me to agree with Robert Fulford for the first time in decades. If such trends continue, I may wind up endorsing strategic voting or imagining that another Royal Commission on Selling Out the Economy (cf. the Donald "Thumper" Macdonald fiasco) would be a good idea. I digress.

Let it at least be noticed that, while all the "responsible media" indulge in hand wringing, breast beating and mind numbing, the cute little caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed are easily available for all to see and, almost immediately, to find tiresome.

Has no one noticed that these jolly wee frivolities are not being disseminated by clandestine blasphemers and furtive infidels alone, but are also nicely displayed in "wikipedia"?

So, let us not give undue credit for courage (or undue blame for insensitivity) to the Western Standard and the like. The 'toons have been "democratically" posted for all to see and will, I suspect, be forgotten as soon as Islamicists find some new focus for their congenital apoplexy.

If, however, Muslims continue to be outraged, let us at least dispense with their tedious insistance that "Westerners" (like they're not?) would be equally upset with images that make fun of Moses and Jesus. Personally, I am happy to satirize either - equally personified by Chuck Heston in full NRA regalia.

Why not float versions of John Mapplethorpe's "Piss Christ" into cyberspace, lauch some silly representations of Moses roasting marshmallows on the burning bush, and add in a depiction of the Buddha dozing under the Bodhi tree for good measure? (Methinks that, at least, the Dalai Lama would allow himself a chuckle.)

None of this, of course, will help fundamentalists of all flavours to come to their senses, but it might give the rest of us something with which to lighten our day.