Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Those Cartoons

I've been closely following the controversy of those cartoons that are apparently offending Muslims around the world. This week a Canadian news magazine called "The Western Standard" is publishing them. I wholeheartedly support their right to do so. Here's a CBC interview with publisher Ezra Levant on the subject. I find it hilarious how the interviewer had her pre-prepared set of questions, trying to trap or embarrass Levant, but he quickly turned the tables on her.

You can read more about the cartoons here.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here are excerpts from an article that hopes to rationalize.

Jyllands-Posten rejected caricatures of Christ three years ago, saying they were too provocative — precisely the grounds on which Muslims have objected to the Muhammad drawings.

There is a growing realization that freedom of speech is circumscribed by laws of libel, hate and religious freedom, and also self-restraint dictated by such subjective considerations as to whether or not words or drawings may be gratuitously insulting or morally reprehensible.

Jyllands-Posten and several papers that reprinted the cartoons are openly anti-Muslim. Pluralism and globalism together are moving monoculturalists to the margins. There is also increasing appreciation that Islamophobia did play a big part in the episode.

A consensus is emerging that the Jyllands-Posten episode had an aura of juvenile bravado to it.

Equally, the West and the world of Islam are no longer planets apart. What we say about each other has repercussions, as we have seen.

Internet, text messages, Al-Jazeera and other networks have robbed the West of its monopoly on the world narrative.

PelaLusa said...

Dear "Anonymous":

Interesting talking points, none of which I disagree with.

But you completely side step the most important issues:

If a newspaper or magazine chooses to print cartoons making fun of any religious leader then so be it. You or I may disagree with them, but they do have the right to do so, don't they? DON'T THEY?!?!?

What's more wrong here:
1. Printing cartoons.
2. Threatening to kill or actually killing cartoonists for what they have drawn.

If your answer is #1 or "it depends" then God help us all.

Anonymous said...

How about you dont make that a multiple choice question to force an answer you want. How about saying they are both wrong things to do. Killing is never the right thing. Neither is provoking an entire killing spree to make a buck and increase circulation. Do you think any of the newspapers would have cared to reprint this cartoon for "freedom of speech" if there was not such and uproar and they knew that this would increase circulation. This is not about freedom of speech, this is opportunism at its best to make a buck. The rest..well that just lets the presses going and papers selling a little longer so its in their best interest to keep the unrest continuing.

PelaLusa said...

"Provoking an entire killing spree"?!? Do you understand what you've just said?

"Provoking an entire killing spree by publishing cartoons."

So in other words, if I say something you don't like then *I* am provoking you to kill me?!? What a perverted sense of right & wrong you have.

Furthermore, why don't you come out from the veil of anonymity and at least have the decency to leave a first name?

Mark said...

It is about the principle of freedom and our hard-fought right to exercise it. THAT's why many westerners are keen to pass along these cartoons, either in print or by email. If people of other cultures don't understand that, I'm sorry (where have you been the 5 centuries?). They probably also don't understand why the last world wars were fought, or why the British and American revolutions were fought. And while we'll fight again. We don't like "authorities" telling us what we can and cannot say.

Which is why British historian Irving's current trial is a travesty and why Ernst Zundel's current trial is a grave error.

Anonymous said...

Are you denying the power of the media to incite riots and other behavior by pecking at the sensetivities of the masses? And why does western civil society think that the whole world needs to adhere to its standards. I'm curious to get people's opinions on the decision of western governments to boycott a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government in Palestine. So western societies only support democracy as long as the rest of the world are puppets and only elect governments that can be controlled by the west? Now think of a palestinian or someone in east feeling this way...and then fuel is added to fire by insulting something so sacred. Would you support a cartoon of a murder being committed of a child and pass that along as free speech?