The CBC is a joke. It is a Socialist Rag. It appeases the violent extreme while condemning those who look for a society that is honorable and stands up for what it believes in. OH yeah, please get rid of George Stromboopolis. Well time to go, gotta go wax my......

Posted by: Rick at February 13, 2006 03:57 PM

---

News Flash** The CBC is staffed by journalistic cowards.

Posted by: JL at February 13, 2006 04:00 PM

---

I haven't found the CBC to be relevant for years.

Posted by: Agent Orange at February 13, 2006 04:17 PM

---

Let's not get carried away. I'm no fan of the CBC, that's for sure, but to say this is that same as telling people to get the news elsewhere is as sensationalistic as the lousy print media.

If there were a story on pornography they wouldn't show it. I seem to remember the other side of the coin when there were media pictures of dead soldiers being shown everywhere, and nobody was making 'freedom of speech' arguments then.

Posted by: andypanda at February 13, 2006 04:23 PM

---

The freedom to print and say what you want is a critical and fundamental right. Free speech (that does not incite violence) is paramount and must be protected.

No one has a "right" to be respected; it's just a decent and civil thing for a person to do. No religion has a "right" to demand from non-adherents adherence to the tenets of its faith; but that does not mean that flouting those tenets in order to prove your freedom to do so is a worthy cause.

I have to say it is hardly surprising that, when it comes to Muslims, so many on a certain side of the fence, think it is now OK to not just defend the cartoonist who drew the cartoons or the publisher who originally published it, but an obligation to go out and re-print and re-print and re-print.

The equivocating is disgusting and very revealing.

No one should go to jail for publishing those cartoons. But, while there is no "right" to be respected by others, a decent and civil society - and decent and civil people - do not go out of their way to publish content that they know is taken as an insult by others.

I would defend anyone's right to publish pornography despite the pious objections of some, anti-Christian art despite claims of blashemy (remember Christians burnt down cinemas after The Last Temptation of Christ) and photos of war dead despite claims that this undermines any war effort, but I would not make a campaign out of sticking up pornographic photos, mutated images of Christ or photos of blown-up bodies just to make my point.

When no one is going to jail over the cartoons, such a campaign does not defend free speech, it makes a mockery of free speech.

More of my thoughts on the cartoons, the right to publish them, the conservatives' newfound love of free speech, and decent and civil discourse is over at Cerberus, for anyone interested.

Ted
Cerberus

Posted by: Ted at February 13, 2006 04:25 PM

---

It's all yesterdays news that public beheading of innocent people is carried out, children are rigged with bombs and sent onto school buses and rockets are launched into communities, all without outrage from the Muslim community. No Mosques are burnt, no headquarters of funadmentalist organizations are targeted and no crowds of thousands are calling for the deaths of those responsible.

Something strange is going on that the cartoons that we're talking about that were published in Egypt in 2004 and caused only a minor ripple are now, that several really offensive anonymous cartoons that were not published in Danemark have been added, are causing a well orchistrated riot with extreme violence and a huge stock of Danish flags (in Syria you say, I'm not making this up.)

Stranger in a Strange Land comes to mind.

Posted by: Pat at February 13, 2006 04:38 PM

---

The North American MSM have dropped the ball on this one. No one can intelligently form an opnion on the caricatures without viewing them. You can be sure the MSM editors viewed them. As Ezra Levant noted, they are the news of the month. It is not gratuitous to publish them; it essential for news readers to analyze the issue intelligently and come to an informed opinion. Seeing the drawings, most are banal beyond belief. Indeed, that I'm sure was the point. Thyey were not published frivolously. They were political speech, protesting the fact cartoonists were to too afraid of being killed to illustrate a book for non-Muslim children aimed at promoting an understanding of the Muslim faith. Those cartoons made the point eloquently, it seems.

The decision by the MSM not to deprive readers of the means to make informed decisions indicates an adbidaction of the primary news function to bloggers and the Internet. The MSM is just entertainment now folks. Get your news elsewhere.

Posted by: Murray at February 13, 2006 05:45 PM

---

"remember Christians burnt down cinemas after The Last Temptation of Christ"

Ted - do you have a source for that? I just went through 100 returns in a search on AltaVista and couldn't find anything like that except 1) a similar statement on another blog and 2) a bit from a French news article about how theaters there were picketed when the movie was shown there. Maybe it happened somewhere in Europe, or even in Canada, but I was a teenager in the U.S. at the time, I remember well all the hoopla (we took sides on it in debate and kept tabs on it in English Lit), and what people did was picket and write letters to the editor. Ooooohh! Scary! And, in retrospect, it's generally agreed that the controversy helped the movie make a lot more money than it would have otherwise. Not exactly the same thing as "Death to Scorcese" or anything like that.

Posted by: Meg Q at February 13, 2006 06:54 PM

---

The CBC- what a bunch of craven, dhimmified cowards. My contempt for the organization is limitless.

Meg Q:

I reckon Ted was referring to the 1978 hostage-taking of a cinema in Washington by Muslim terrorists, when "The Messenger" was screened- a radio reporter was murdered, then-Councillor Marion Barry was shot in the chest, and the ambassadors of KSA and Egypt were involved in brokering a truce with the Islamist terrorists to secure the release of the 150 hostages.

Posted by: Reg at February 13, 2006 08:02 PM

---

It sounds like more moral equivalation... well they did it too... I don't think there was a fire/bombing violent crime of any type associated with the 'Temptation of Christ'.

Posted by: Curtis at February 13, 2006 11:14 PM

---

Wow, Ted, any way to cram more sarcasm in your so-called "civil and decent" discourse. The irony in your words is really lost on you.

Wow, to be a human with such a degree of cognitive disonance as you epouse.

Posted by: jack spat at February 13, 2006 11:18 PM

---

Oh, and as Meg pointed out, you make shit up about the other side to show that all of us are just the same.

No thanks, I won't visit. I can have no stomach for the hypocracy that you eschew.

Posted by: jack spat at February 13, 2006 11:20 PM

---

And why, lost in this debate, is no one talking about the anti-semitic cartoons in Islamic newspapers on a regular basis? I'm pretty sure the intent there is to offend. Period.

Posted by: Candace at February 14, 2006 12:23 AM

---

We're all infidels as far as the Islamic 'street' is concerned, thus we dont matter. Our feelings dont matter, our lives dont matter.

Its very much like the Nazi attitude, towards thier "subhuman" victims.

Posted by: Curtis at February 14, 2006 12:33 AM

---

Oh come on now.

CBC ineffectual because in an audio interview Levant is told that he could have covered the story without purposefully offending a minority group?

Seriously, you have no argument here. Sensationalism is about as good as "Angry in the Great White North" is good for.

At least try to think your arguments through.

Cheers.

Posted by: Pete at February 14, 2006 09:11 AM

---

Ted, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your facts. And your facts on Last Temptation are wrong.
And you can't do your moral equivalence dance unless you stand up and criticise those who do their "things" that stand as a deliberate insult to other religions as you have criticised the Western Standard here.
You're coming off as a dhimmi.

Posted by: bob at February 14, 2006 09:41 AM

---

Were all part of the great satan, we're all infidels and we all submit to any group that threatens violence against us.

and everyone over the age of 18 deserves 9/11 mk 2

Yet we can't say anything about the worlds most bloodthirsty religion.

No more jokes about Hare Krishna's, Or Buddha's with bombs.

Stop all Muslim immigration before your loved ones get their attention.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20646

"In Australia's New South Wales Supreme Court in December 2005, a visiting Pakistani rapist testified that his victims had no right to say no, because they were not wearing a headscarf."

Please let my granddaughters feel the light of the sun on their face.

Posted by: DrWright at February 14, 2006 09:41 AM

---

globeandmail.com POLL TODAY:

DO YOU BELIEVE CANADA NEEDS THE CBC?

GO VOTE!!!!!!!! Right now it's at 65% YES

Posted by: Sharon at February 14, 2006 09:55 AM

---

Gee...the "reporters" must be stumbling around in confusion. How to suckhole to the new masters, to get them cushy PR jobs, without alienating all the Liberals they blew in the past...

Posted by: Raymond Hietapakka at February 14, 2006 11:14 AM

---

Wow. Just heard that Chapters Bookstores has pulled all the Western Standard from their shelves.

Very sad as it gives credence and succor to the Islamofacists position - they can now point to all the surrender monkeys who 'support' their claim to insult

Posted by: Randy O'Donnell at February 14, 2006 01:38 PM

---

and everyone over the age of 18 deserves 9/11 mk 2

Mo? Mo Elmasry? Is that you posting here?

Posted by: Reg at February 14, 2006 01:39 PM

---

I don't see you putting the cartoons up...

Posted by: Jay at February 14, 2006 06:53 PM

---

Russell Storring is a Master Corporal with the Canadian Army, and has been a signals operator for the 14 years he has been in the military. He recently returned from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, having served there previously in 2003, and with the UN in Rwanda in 1994. His columns give a first-person account from the field and the life of a soldier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like many people in Canada and around the world, I have watched in horror and disbelief as Islamic riots are waged over the printing of cartoons of Muhammad.
From Europe to the Middle East, Africa to Indonesia, thousands of protests have been staged; many becoming violent as Muslims denounce what they believe is the defamation of their Prophet Muhammad. In Afghanistan, upwards of ten people have been killed with scores injured (including NATO soldiers), as police battle unruly crowds in an effort to protect foreign embassies, personnel and NATO bases.

The Taliban have gone so far as to place bounties of gold on the heads of the cartoonists and NATO soldiers from Denmark, Norway and Germany -- those they consider the chief offenders in this controversy.

Having served two tours of duty in Afghanistan with the military, I have seen first hand how people often do not actually associate a flag with a nation. Rather, all western soldiers are viewed as exactly that – "western soldiers." Sure, once people had an opportunity to talk to us, they recognized that we were Canadian -- but the difference might be moot in a frenzied moment. When someone is looking for a target to hit, whether with an improvised explosive device, a suicide bomb, or something as simple as a well-aimed rock, they are looking for a "western soldier." Whoever generally matches their target ends up their prey.

I had hoped that Canadians serving overseas would avoid most of the brunt of this cartoon controversy as mainstream Canadian media opted not to run the controversial cartoons. Everyday life can often be risky enough for our soldiers (at least in Afghanistan).

I followed the flow of comments about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and how western countries shouldn't be afraid of protesting or rioting Muslims; that it's our inherent right to print those cartoons. But I couldn't help noting that this slew of "freedoms" come from people who take for granted what our fathers and grandfathers paid for in blood, and what our own soldiers pay for today.

Freedoms are something many people here in Canada and around the world take for granted; the minute someone perceives that those freedoms are being infringed upon, a whole movement begins that can quickly snowball out of control.

I am a soldier that believes deeply in freedom, and by virtue of service for my country I have and am willing to put my life on the line for what my country believes in. With freedom of anything comes the responsibility to make sound decisions and common-sense choices.

Deciding to not print those controversial cartoons has nothing to do with being cowed by fear of Islamic retribution; it has everything to do with respecting another person's beliefs and the common sense that Canadians have always been known for around the world.

When we as soldiers move into another country, whether to keep or enforce the peace, we respect the fact that the host country is unique in its beliefs and culture. We try to leave the country (at some point) with minimal cultural impact.

We respect their holidays and events; we go so far as to try not to eat or drink in front of Muslims during Ramadan out of respect for their culture, even while in our own camp. This has nothing to do with fear of offending them, but has to do with respect and our ability to live in a multi-cultural environment -- whether overseas or here in Canada.

Some publishers here in Canada have used their "freedoms" to inflame an already volatile situation in order, they say, to make a point. If now, like so many European countries, our troops become targets over what boils down to so-called freedoms of press or expression, where will be the position of those Canadian publishers then? If one of our troops is killed as a target of "blasphemy," I highly doubt those publishers will thank the soldier's family for allowing their magazine to express their belief.

Canada has always been a country of tolerance, a country of compassion and a country of moral standards. Now we risk all that for the sake of a few cartoons. I have my doubts that any media organization here in Canada would run a series of anti-Catholic cartoons that the Vatican felt were strongly offensive.

By infringing on other people's freedoms of belief, religion or thought, as an expression of our own freedoms -- what have we accomplished? I truly hope that this isn't the kind of society that we are becoming.

This is from that dreadful MSN outlet called the "CBC". It is a good read I think.

Having spent a number of years in the Canadian Army, thankfully most of them through peaceful times, I still cannot agree with Mcpl Storring's conclusion that the publication of the cartoons
is not a matter of free speech.
His column does provide a refreshing outlook on the possible reprecusssions from their publication though, especially coming from someone that must not just do the talk, but is sent by his country to do the walk on it's behalf.
I suspect that if I was still in uniform and was making regular trips to places like Afghanistan my conclusions about freedom of the press might be different.
Cheers

Posted by: Guardsman at February 15, 2006 04:51 PM

---