Respect, as in the kind of "respect" you would have for someone who says . . .

"Nice embassy you have there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."

Posted by: DocBrown at February 17, 2006 12:45 PM

---

Dear Friends;
Below is a 'conversation' I'm having with a VP at Indigo/Chapters Books. If you agree, please consider sending your concerns to Ms. Gaulin at:

sgaulin@indigo.ca

The defence of free speech is too important (or should be) to leave to others and I hope you'll join me in making your views known.

Randy
--------------------------------------------------
TO: Sorya Ingrid Gaulin
V.P. Public Relations & Corporate Giving
!ndigo Books & Music Inc.

Dear Ms. Gaulin
Thank you for your response and the opportunity to respond in turn.

"In light of the decision of this magazine to publish content which has been known to ignite extreme demonstrations and violence"

This is why in my estimation, you have made a dangerous and erroneous decision. The threats, violence and demonstrations are INTENDED to restrict our right of free speech and in the case of Indigo, have proven very effective. You'll note that in Alberta, Muslim representatives have filed a Human Rights Commission complaint and the EU is considering changing legislation to further restrict the right to expression. Meanwhile, many ME countries freely publish scurrilous and hateful materials without seeing the irony of their hypocrisy. Indigo has provided further evidence that freedom of speech is not immutable, by prostrating themselves to either fear or misplaced political correctness.

"This particular issue of the magazine is still available through subscription and for sale at some other retailers in the country."

While this is no doubt true, it does not diminish your responsibility to uphold free speech. I have now subscribed to WS directly and similarly, I will take my other (considerable) media purchases to another retailer.

"Most news organizations in Canada and many other retailers have come to a similar conclusion on this issue."

Most lemmings follow their peers off cliffs, too. Not a strong argument. I would ask what other normally stocked material you might pull when threatened by violence, but frankly I cannot imagine any other component of world society which would cause you to do so. Fascism, which this clearly is, begins with small steps and when appeased, grows inboldened.

"Let us be clear and state that we fully support freedom of the press and freedom of expression."

Sorry, but that's just silly. "Clearly" you do not fully support freedom of speech, because you've caved at the first threat against it. This is the Neville Chamberlain school of rationalization.

"In order for such rights to be exercised and upheld, there must be at the core of our society, a mutual respect for others’ beliefs and opinions, even if they are conflicting at times."

Please think about your statement. You cannot by definition have free speech if the "other" says: Print this and we will kill you. Print this and we will burn your embassy. Print this and we will kill innocents. This is Canada. Western Standard is a Canadian magazine, printed and distributed in Canada. Should I travel to Dubai, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, I would of course respect and conduct myself according to their culture, religion and social practices. However, this is Canada and your action has allowed people from other countries and cultures to not only disrespect the freedoms for which my 21 yr. old uncle died, but to modify and negate that freedom due to threat of violence. Vichy anyone?

Posted by: Randy O'Donnell at February 17, 2006 12:58 PM

---

I think you should ask the Chapters exec why they are still carrying Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

Posted by: DocBrown at February 17, 2006 01:07 PM

---

Angry, you have repeatedly characterized the publication of the Danish cartoons on grounds of freedom of speech and expression. And you have prominently posted the cartoons on this site for what you claim is the same reason.

But the absence on your site of any of the recently-released photographs of abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib, which is certainly newsworthy and far more significant than caricatures, is notable.

When are you going to post some of the appalling new photographs from Abu Ghraib?

Posted by: Ade at February 17, 2006 01:15 PM

---

I draw some similarities between Nazism and Islam. Both demand blind obedience as well as unquestioned loyalty and public displays of devotion.

Islam is doomed and they know it. The freedom and wealth the west has to offer is too big of a carrot to go unchased. Terrorism is a last resort method that will not succeed.

Only trouble is like Germany in 1944, Islam will have to be flattened to the ground before they get it.

Respect for respect does not exist in their culture.

Posted by: Liberal Ron at February 17, 2006 01:17 PM

---

I wrote to Chapters also and was surprised to get a response, albeit a canned one.

SO now that we've proven how "free we are", can we move on? I mean, these guys won't stop. We're running out of embassies, Ronald MacDonald statues and so on.

Lost Budgie has a picture of this happening, almost Norman Rockwellian:
http://lostbudgie.blogspot.com/

But I haven't seen any Muslim's answer my question: Is it blasphemous to look at a painting/cartoon/image of Mohammad?

If so, then who looked and how come Middle East (ME) newspapers are printing them also aren't being torched?

Meanwhile let's continue our regularly scheduled belly button lint contest.

Posted by: tomax at February 17, 2006 01:19 PM

---

i can't believe that we, here in the civilized western world, can let wankers like clinton speek for "most of us".
Untill moderate muslims get out and completely denounce the islamic extremists, seperate themselves from these radicals in ideology and show that the majority of muslims in the world are in fact peaceful, then and only then will the islamic faith be able to atain true respect from the rest of the world.
but somehow i dont think you will find 700,000 muslim people to go out in the streets in the middle east and protest against the radical islamists will you?
on a side note... i wonder if the pakistani cleric that offered money and a car for the cartoonist's head is putting a bounty on the islamic cleric that planted the 3 "editorial cartoons" that were never published...

Posted by: at February 17, 2006 01:20 PM

---

An excellent column by John Robson in the Ottawa Citzen: "Muslim riots justify publishing the cartoons"
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6298fb55-63eb-4cc8-ad4a-d5cae9d80f67

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins at February 17, 2006 01:30 PM

---

Ade

“When are you going to post some of the appalling new photographs from Abu Ghraib?�

Ade, can’t you find any Abu pics anywhere else?? All left-leaning news organization went wall to wall with them, BBC, CBC, CNN ect, ect.

Come on, you are deliberately missing the point.

There is an international blackout on the Danish cartoons for the fear of Muslim retailation, and blogs seem to be the main source of instant viewing.
There is no blackout of the Abu pics whatsoever.

…and the people who committed the crimes of humiliation on the prisoners in Abu Graib have been charged, convicted and are serving time. And when they get out of prison, they will be dishonorably discharged from the military. What more do you want? The death penalty?

Posted by: Pete at February 17, 2006 01:43 PM

---

Pete, there is something very instructive about how completely Ade misses the point, the utter blindless about one system that, however imperfectly, exposes its flaws and a system that believes it has none and will kill anyone who does not agree.

Posted by: Billy B. ByTown at February 17, 2006 02:27 PM

---

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON - WHY THE WEST HAS WON

This book attempts to explain why Westerners have been so adept at using their civilization to kill others - at warring so brutally, so often without being killed. Past, present, and future, the story of military dynamism in the world is ultimately an investigation into the prowess of Western arms. The general public itself is mostly unaware of their culture's own singular and continuous lethality in arms. Yet for the past 2,500 years - even in the Dark Ages, well before the 'Military Revolution', and not simply as result of the Renaissance, the European discovery of the Americas, or the Industrial Revolution - there has been a peculiar practice of Western warfare, a common foundation and continual way of fighting, that has made Europeans the most deadly soldiers in the history of civilization.

CONTENTS

01 The Western Way of War
02 Freedom - Salamis 480 B.C.
03 Decisive Battle - Gaugamela 331 B.C.
04 Citizen Soldiers - Cannae 216 B.C.
05 Landed Infantry - Poitiers 732
06 Technology - Tenochtitlan 1520
07 The Market - Lepanto 1571
08 Discipline - Rorke's Drift 1879
09 Individualism - Midway 1942
10 Dissent - Tet 1968
EP Epilogue - Past and Future

http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/History/Hanson.html

Posted by: maz2 at February 17, 2006 02:39 PM

---

Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out (Hardcover)
by Ibn Warraq
Book Description
Given that I am rather skeptical of the very possibility of a scientific survey of apostates, it is rather difficult for me to make any psychological, sociological, or anthropological generalizations based on fewer than fifty personal testimonies that would be valid outside this particular group. No quick portrait of the typical apostate is likely to appear--some are young (students in their teens), some are middle-aged with children; some are scientists, while others are economists, businesspeople, or journalists; some are from Bangladesh, others are from Pakistan, India, Morocco, Egypt, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Our witnesses, nonetheless, do have certain moral and intellectual qualities in common: for instance, they are all comparatively well educated, computer literate with access to the Internet, and rational, with the ability to think for themselves. However, what is most striking is their fearlessness, their moral courage, and their moral commitment to telling the truth. They all face social ostracism, the loss of friends and family, a deep inner spiritual anguish and loneliness--and occasionally the death penalty if discovered. Their decisions are not frivolously taken, but the ineluctable result of rational thinking.

There are very useful analogies to be drawn between communism and Islam. . . .As Arthur Koestler said, "You hate our Cassandra cries and resent us as allies, but when all is said, we ex-Communists are the only people on your side who know what it's all about."

Communism has been defeated, at least for the moment; Islamism has not, and unless a reformed, tolerant, liberal kind of Islam emerges soon, perhaps the final battle will be between Islam and Western democracy. And these former Muslims, to echo Koestler's words, on the side of Western democracy are the only ones who know what it's all about, and we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries. -- Ibn Warraq, from the Introduction

From the Inside Flap
In the West, those who abandon their religion (apostates) find it to be a difficult, emotional decision that sometimes carries with it social repercussions, such as physical and psychological isolation from family, friends, and colleagues. However, in culturally diverse societies with a mixture of ethnic groups and various philosophies of life, most people look upon such intellectual shifts in allegiance as a matter of personal choice and the right of the individual. In stark contrast, the socially restricted Muslim world still views apostasy as an unthinkable act, and orthodox Muslims consider it a crime punishable by death. Renowned scholar of Islamic Studies Bernard Lewis has described the seriousness of leaving the Islamic faith in dire terms: "Apostasy was a crime as well as a sin, and the apostate was damned both in this world and the next. His crime was treason--desertion and betrayal of the community to which he belonged, and to which he owed loyalty; his life and property were forfeit. He was a dead limb to be excised."

Defying the death penalty that all apostates potentially face in the Islamic world, the ex-Muslims represented here feel it is their duty to speak up against their former faith, to tell the truth about the fastest-growing religion in the world. These former Muslims--some born into the faith; others, Western converts--from all parts of the Islamic world recount how they slowly came to realize that their religion was in many respects unbelievable and sometimes even dangerous.

These memoirs and journals of personal journeys to enlightenment and intellectual freedom make for moving reading and are a courageous signal to other ex-Muslims to openly express their views.

About the Author
Ibn Warraq is the author of WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM, and the editor of WHAT THE KORAN REALLY SAYS, THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL MUHAMMAD, and THE ORIGINS OF THE KORAN.

Posted by: mikeh at February 17, 2006 03:14 PM

---

February 10, 2006, 9:20 a.m.
Losing Civilization
Are we going to tolerate the downfall of Western ideals?

The great wealth and leisure created by modern technology have confused some in the modern age into thinking that history is linear. We expect that each generation will inevitably improve upon the last, as if we, the blessed of the 21st century, would never chase out Anaxagoras or execute S ocrates — or allow others to do so — in our modern polis.

Often such material and moral advancement proves true — look at the status of brain surgery now and 100 years ago, or the notion of equality under the law in 1860 and in 2006.

But just as often civilization can regress. Indeed, it can be nearly lost in a generation, especially so now, with technology acting as an afterburner of sorts which warps the rate of change, both good and bad.

Who would have thought, after the Enlightenment and the advance of humanism, that a 20th-century Holocaust would redefine the 500-year-old Inquisition as minor in comparison?

Did we envision that, little more than 60 years after Dachau, a head-of-state would boast openly about wiping out the remaining Jews? Or did we ever believe in the time of the United Nations and religious tolerance that radical Muslims would still be seriously promising to undo the Reconquista of the 15th century?

Did any sane observer dream, in the era of UNESCO and sophisticated global cultural heritage preservation, that the primitive Taliban would blow up and destroy, with impunity, the iconic Buddhist statues chiseled into the sandstone cliffs of Bamiyan that had survived 1,700 years of war, earthquakes, conquests, and weather?
Surely those who damned the inadvertent laxity of the Americans in not stopping others from looting the Baghdad museum should have expressed far greater outrage at the far greater, and intentional, destruction inflicted by the Taliban. Unless, that is, the issue of artistic freedom and preservation was never really the principle after all, but only the realistic calculation that, while George Bush's immensely powerful military would not touch a finger of its loudest critic, a motley bunch of radical Islamic fascists might well blow someone up or lop off his head for a tasteless caricature in far off Denmark.

The latest Islamic outrage over the Danish cartoons represents an erosion in the very notion of Western tolerance. Years ago, the death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie was the dead canary in the mine. It should have warned us that the Western idea of free and unbridled expression, so difficultly won, can be so easily lost.

While listening to the obfuscations of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw about the Danish cartoons, I thought that next he was going to call for a bowdlerization of Dante's Inferno, where Dante and Virgil in the eighth rung of Hell gaze on the mutilated specters of Mahomet and his son Ali, along with the other Sowers of Discord. I grew up reading the text with the gruesome illustrations of Gustave Doré. Can Straw now damn that artist's judgment as well, when the next imam threatens global jihad, more terrorism, an oil cut-off, or to make things worse for Anglo-American troops who are trying to bring democracy to Iraq?

Surely he can apologize that the cross of the Union Jack offends British Muslims? Or perhaps the memory of what Lord Kitchener did in 1898 to the tomb of the Great Mahdi needs contemporary atonement — once one starts down the road of self-censorship, there is never an end to it.

Since Bill Clinton mentioned nothing about free speech and expression or the rights of a newspaper to be offensive and tasteless, but lectured only about cultural insensitivity and the responsibility of the media not to be mean to Muslims, why did he stop with the Danish cartoonists? Surely someone who has apologized for everyone from General Sherman to the Shah could have lamented the work of every Western artist, from Rodin to Dali, who has rendered the Prophet in a bad light.

Like the appeasement of the 1930s, we are in the great age now of ethical retrenchment. So much has been lost even since 1960; then the very idea that a Dutch cartoonist whose work had offended radical Muslims would be in hiding for fear of his life would have been dismissed as fanciful.

Insidiously, the censorship only accelerates. It is dressed up in multicultural gobbledygook about hurtfulness and insensitivity, when the real issue is whether we in the West are going to be blown up or beheaded if we dare come out and support the right of an artist or newspaper to be occasionally crass.

In the post-Osama bin Laden and suicide-belt world of our own, we shudder at these fanatical riots, convincing ourselves that perhaps the Salman Rushdies, Theo Van Goghs, and Danish cartoonists of the world had it coming. All the while, we think to ourselves about the fact that we do not threaten to kill Muslims when they promulgate daily streams of hate and racism in sermons and papers, and much less would we go about promising death to the creator of "Piss Christ" or the Da Vinci Code. How ironic that we now find politically-correct Westerners — those who formerly claimed they would defend to the last the right of an Andres Serrano or Dan Brown to offend Christians — turning on the far milder artists who rile Muslims.

The radical Islamists are our generation's book burners who search for secular Galileos and Newtons. They are the new Nazi censors who sniff out anything favorable to the Jews. These fundamentalists are akin to the Soviet commissars who once decreed all art must serve political struggle — or else.

If we give in to these 8th-century clerics, shortly we will be living in an 8th century ourselves, where we may say, hear, and do nothing that might offend a fundamentalist Muslim — and, to assuage our treachery to freedom and liberalism, we'll always be equipped with the new rationale of multiculturalism and cultural equivalence which so poorly cloaks our abject fear.

There are three final considerations. First, millions of brave reformers in the Muslim world are trying each day to create a tolerant culture and a consensual society. What those in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Egypt want from us is not appeasement that emboldens the radicals in their midst, but patient, careful, and firm explanations that freedom is precious and worth the struggle — even though its use can sometimes bother us. Surely the lesson from Eastern Europe applies: the oppressed there did not appreciate the realpolitik and appeasement of many in the West, but most often preferred a stalwart Reagan to an equivocating Carter.

Second, we, not the Islamists, are secure; our dependency on oil has masked a greater reality: that the Muslim Middle East, as in the days of the Ottomans, is parasitic on the West for advancements of all sorts, from heart surgery to computers. Most of the hatred expressed over the cartoons was beamed on television, through the Internet, or communicated over cell phones that would not exist in Pakistan, Syria, or Iran without imported technology.

The Islamists are also sad bullies, who hunt out causes for offense in the most obscure places, but would recoil at the first sign of Western defiance. Turkey may say little to the Islamists now, but they would say lots if the European Union decided to pass on its inclusion into the union. Local imams sound fiery, but if the West is too debauched a place for any pure Muslim to endure, why then do they not lead, Moses-like, an exodus of the devout away from the rising flood of decadence, and back to the paradise of a purer Syria or Algeria?

Third, the bogus notion of multiculturalism has blinded us to a simple truth: we in the West can live according to our own values and should not allow those radicals who embrace or condone polygamy, gender apartheid, religious intolerance, political autocracy, homosexual persecution, honor killings, female circumcision, and a host of other unmentionables to threaten our citizens within our own countries.

The deluded here might believe that the divide is a moral one, between a supposedly decadent secular West and a pious Middle East, rather than an existential one that is fueled by envy, jealousy, self-pity, and victimization. But to believe the cartoons represent the genuine anguish of an aggrieved puritanical society tainted by Western decadence, one would have to ignore that Turkey is the global nexus for the sex-slave market, that Afghanistan is the world's opium farm, that the Saudi Royals have redefined casino junketeering, and that the repository of Hitlerian imagery is in the West Bank and Iran.

The entire controversy over the cartoons is ludicrous, but often in history the trivial and ludicrous can wake a people up before the significant and tragic follow.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War

Posted by: mikeh at February 17, 2006 03:17 PM

---

Maz2 (and anyone else who made it down here after the previous lengthly posts)

Is anyone else completely tired of the argument that white Europeans (and Republican Americans) are the either directly or indirectly responsible for all the evil in this world?

“This book attempts to explain why Westerners have been so adept at using their civilization to kill others - at warring so brutally, so often without being killed.�

What western/European countries have these people/civilizations originated from?

Pol pot in Cambodia: 2 million slaughtered
Rwanda Tutis : 800,000 slaughtered
Turkey and the Armenians: 1,500,000 slaughtered
Rape of Nanking by Japan: 300,000 slaughtered
Iraq Mass graves: 270 sites and 290 000 people slaughtered and they are still digging...

Posted by: at February 17, 2006 03:25 PM

---

Thank you Steve for your opening article. I couldn't have said it better, so I won't try.

However, I do have a comment about the "apparent" connection between Islam and the numerous accounts of terrorism and intolerance in the name of Islam.

I do not know a great deal about the Muslim faith, so I will tentatively accept the word of many seemingly rational proponents of Islam that it is a peaceful religion and does not endorse the acts of violence and terror that we have all seen on TV, or in person.

If that is true, then how can these things continue to be done in the name of Muhammad and Allah, without a loud and authoritative outcry from Muslim leaders condemning that behaviour?
I have heard one or two representatives in the Toronto area say so on the radio, but I don't think the terrorists are listening, or more probably, they don't care.

I suspect, the violence has less to do with Islam, and more to do with anti-western propoganda that is completely accepted as gospel by the masses Arab countries who believe whatever their Imams tell them. The only external voice they hear for counterpoint is Al Jazeera.
Not exactly a fount of objective analysis.

In the end, it IS a free speech issue, or rather a free listening issue.
When people can listen to opinions on both sides of an issue, even many disparate opinions, they can exercise their own brain cells and choose the view with which they most agree.

I think using these cartoons to flaunt the freedom of speech in the faces of the Muslims is just rude, and amounts to bear-baiting. Well guess what - the bear fought back.
As much as I like Ezra Levant, I think it was poor judgement to continue his rant long after the point had been made in Denmark.

Unlike the MSM, propoganda does not last long on on-line news sources and blogs like this one that expose the facts, and allow vibrant discussion of every issue.
Unfortunately, I think the majority of people who dance in the streets when bombs explode and death tolls rise, do not have access to these alternatives. It often appears that they live in what, by modern standards, would be called primitive conditions.

Perhaps when the MSM realises that the monopoly is gone and it has lost it's ability to lie with a straight face, then we will see more truth about the evils of terrorism, and less about the evils of George Bush.

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 17, 2006 05:30 PM

---

If we read former President Clinton's remarks charitably, though I'm not so inclined, we could say that what he meant was that we respect the _concept_ of religious freedom. You should be allowed to believe as a Muslim. But, because we respect religious freedom you are _not_ free to force me to become a Muslim, or even insist that every person follow the strictest common denominator of your particular mythology.

I'd agree that most Westerners have no great respect for Islam per se, and that's what's really counterproductive about the protests - we now have less.

Good post.

Posted by: Hershblogger at February 17, 2006 05:45 PM

---

I don't see how printing the caricatures is any more bear-baiting than printing the Iraq prison photos. They are both news and are published for citizens of Western countries to come to informed opinions. Both are used as a pretext by Muslim governments and radicals.

It is the height of hypocrisy for news media to describe the turban-bomb caricature in word-images and not print the caricature--both are images of Mohammed. A verbal description is just as blasphemous. So that is plainly not the issue. The issue is one of pretext to express offense to test the West's self-negation and vulnerability to the imposition of Islamic cultural law.

Posted by: Murray at February 17, 2006 05:55 PM

---

Murray said

"it is the height of hypocrisy for news media to describe the turban-bomb caricature in word-images and not print the caricature--both are images of Mohammed. A verbal description is just as blasphemous."

Interesting. Makes you wonder because of education levels in muslim countries and the difference of how written communication is used between different languages that a picture is "worth a thousand words"
Words on paper about Muhammad being a pedophile might cause a slight uproar because the nature of the communication is in English. Create an image of Muhammad doing a 9yr old girl, would easily translate to any language and would cause an uproar because this isn't probably taught by the local Imans.
Anyone that experienced "divine intervention" and is some kind of "miracle" worker that married a 6-9 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9 is not my kind of person, too put it mildly. But it's in the Koran(Qur'an), and there is no disputing it.

Posted by: mikeh at February 17, 2006 06:14 PM

---

the idoltry they exhibit by the protesting, burning and beheading in the name of Allah contradicts all the protesting, burning and beheading Muslims protest

Posted by: kelly at February 17, 2006 07:09 PM

---

You listen to what Bill Clintaon says?
Why?

Posted by: PGP at February 17, 2006 07:09 PM

---

Of course no one mentioned one factor: there are simply people here who are as bigoted as the Muslims. As Lorrie Goldstein pointed out today, they are lining up against the Islamic world in the name of "Free Speech" when in fact they don't respect any culture or race etc other than their own. Tomorrow they'll be back to blacks or natives. I don't think these people should get off scott-free just because they don't have to actively participate in any war they advocate. Nonetheless, Islam will find itself at odds with every other civilization if they don't learn to coexist with others - not as conquered people or as threats, but as equals. It is possible that a clash of civilizations may be required to make peaceful coexistence more attractive Islamists.

Posted by: Peter Sams at February 17, 2006 07:18 PM

---

Bloggers & all others who defend freedom of the press & freedom of expression!!!!! Help.

Help this freedom-loving Canadian youth. Defend his and our freedom of expression.

He is being intimidated. He is being shut down. He is a lone voice in the wilderness.

Bloggers. Unite to save our freedoms.

Make your stand with Tim Mitchell. Who will give Tim Mitchell a blogspot? How do we help Tim Mitchell?

"Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time." Sir Winston Churchill. +

Student not sorry for distributing cartoon
By JAMES KELLER

HALIFAX (CP) - A Halifax high school student who was censured by his teachers for distributing a controversial cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad says he doesn't plan on apologizing.

Tim Mitchell, a Grade 12 student at the Halifax Grammar School, printed a newsletter containing a drawing from a Danish newspaper that shows the Prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb. The 17-year-old met with school officials Friday, a day after being admonished for bringing copies of the Student Voice to the school.

Mitchell said he was ordered to stop bringing his newsletter to school, to submit a report next week reflecting on the incident and to write a formal apology.

"I might write, 'I'm sorry that the school would have to censor this and I'm sorry that one comic could create so much controversy,' but in no way am I sorry for publishing it," Mitchell said in an interview.

School officials did not return calls Friday, but have said the cartoon and others like it, which have sparked protests and deadly riots throughout the Islamic world, were offensive and should be limited to classroom discussion.

Officials at the private school also wanted to distance themselves from the newsletter, which was not officially sanctioned by the school.

Bruce Wark, who teaches ethics at the University of King's College school of journalism in Halifax, said the cartoon debate is about more than free speech.

"Only a fool would not see that there's more going on, given the big political context . . . and the sensitivity of these," he said.

Wark said it's difficult for people in the West to understand the varied beliefs of Muslims, many of whom think that any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous.

"We're seeing something that goes far beyond freedom of expression or responsible news coverage. It has deep cultural roots in both the West and Islamic world."

Still, Mitchell said he was considering printing more copies.

"I might just post a follow-up copy, but instead of distributing them around the school, I'll just distribute it off school grounds, where they will have no say in the matter," he said. "That makes me want to do it more. They tell me not to - I'm just going to resist that."

Mitchell said he didn't intend to offend anyone, but wanted to let students see the cartoons that have been the subject of front-page headlines around the world.

The cartoons were first published in September, and recently reprinted throughout Europe. The Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, has since apologized to Muslims.

Mitchell said he spoke with Muslim students before printing the drawing, and even included an article written by a Muslim student.

"People in my school community really had no idea what the issue was, they realized something was happening with these protests, but they didn't really realize what was really causing all the controversy," said Mitchell.

"And of all the innocent people who have died because of it, I think people should know why they are dying."

The school is across the street from Saint Mary's University, where professor Peter March enraged Muslim students earlier this month by posting the cartoons on his office door.

Students protested and demanded March be fired. Weeks earlier, about 200 Muslims staged a demonstration outside the Danish embassy in downtown Halifax.

Muslims have staged similar protests in several Canadian cities. A coalition of Muslim groups congratulated Canadians on Friday for their non-violent response to drawings.

In Calgary, the Western Standard magazine and the Jewish Free Press have both featured the drawings.

The University of Prince Edward Island's student newspaper was pulled after becoming one of the first media outlets in Canada to publish the cartoons. >>>
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/17/1448663-cp.html

Posted by: maz2 at February 17, 2006 09:02 PM

---

Hi

Here is some background on how the West and Dysfunctional East got at each other`s throats. Its written by Norman Podhoretz who I understand as having a lot of influence on the thoughts of many in the current Bush Cabinet. Basically he says there is no rest for a USA armed to the teeth as so many will love to take a shot at Uncle Sam http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

There is more in two web casts

One by Thomas Barnett who wrote the Pentagon`s New Map (aval at most bookstores) http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Barnett/barnett-con0.html

And the second is by James Mann who wrote "rise of the Vulcans" about the Bush Cabinet http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/JMann/jmann-con0.html

But don`t expect those out throwing bricks about the cartoons to have any idea what you`re about to read.

Enjoy!

Posted by: Floyd Low at February 17, 2006 09:31 PM

---

I consider the freedom of speech to be one of the hallmarks of a great society, and whole-heartedly endorse the eastern world to adopt it also.
As a great society, Canada, or more accurately, Canadians, should be able to practise Noblesse Oblige, which simply means that when we are right, we don't have to rub it in other's faces.
Freedom of speech is unarguably right!
So the re-re-and-republishing of these cartoons is just a graceless lack of finesse.

Having said that, however, the freedom of my fist ends at the end of your nose!
Likewise, Muslims can be justifiably offended about these cartoons, and are free to complain loudly, but they have no right to wreak violence on anybody. That is just plain criminal activity, and I don't care how they justify Fatwas and Jihads, the moment they resort to violence, they have forfeited any respect the global community might have afforded them.

But don't have any delusions that the UN Security Council will even cast a disdainful glance at them. Not a chance! The UN is too busy digging up new ways to blame the U.S. for everything that goes wrong in the world.
Godspeed the day when somebody will actually tally up all the good things the U.S. has done around the world and put the few mistakes they have made in proper perspective.

Anyway, I think it is time, and recent events may swing popular opinion, to support an all out police action, with the co-operation of Muslim leadership, against the groups who perpetrate terror and murder around the globe.
Strangers tend to band together when faced with a common threat. Until recently, the MSM has successfully convinced most people that Bush was the common threat. Now that the truth is becoming more widely apparent, perhaps the sane people in the world, including Arabs, can direct some punitive attention in the right direction.

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 18, 2006 12:06 AM

---

Has anyone considered the possibility that the "outrage" (intolerance) shown by the Muslims of the world are policital in nature and not religious as portrayed by our beloved MSM. If I am not mistaken Denmark is about to take over the presidency of the UN Security Council. Certain countries with a predominate Muslim populace are at odds with the UNSC over nuclear weapons and the WMD that Saddam dispersed before his latest battle with the US. If Denmark can be disgraced and browbeaten into submission then these offensive countries will stand a better chance of keeping the UN at bay. Not that the UN needs much to keep it at bay now. The evidence lies in the fact that even the Danish cartoonist wouldn't recognize the cartoons being shown in the rioting countries as being anything that he drew because they are much more vile and insulting to the average Muslim than any stick figure telling the suicide bombers to stop blowing themselves up because heaven had run out of virgins.

Posted by: Joe at February 18, 2006 01:22 AM

---

"Nonetheless, Islam will find itself at odds with every other civilization if they don't learn to coexist with others - not as conquered people or as threats, but as equals. It is possible that a clash of civilizations may be required to make peaceful coexistence more attractive Islamists."

This is the usual, post-modern liberal, mulit-culti "I'm morally superior to you" representation of Islam.

Get with the program,sport. All cultures are NOT equal. The Islamic culture of death is not equal to the western (however imperfect) approach of democracy, freedom and human rights.

Equal Cultures? You might find this Islamic website interesting. Many have long postulated that Islamiscists are embarrassed and humiliated that their 'culture' has not advanced in the last many hundred years and that rather than blaming themselves and their religious leaders, they find comfort in demonizing the west.

Note how in the 'What is taught' and 'What should be taught' about science, they start in the ninth century and finish listing their 'inventions' in the 14th century.

I don't make this stuff up. It's directly from their own websites.

http://www.missionislam.com/science/record.htm

What has been discovered or invented in the seven centuries since? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Randy O'Donnell at February 18, 2006 01:23 AM

---

Randy, I'm not even sure how you got that out of my post (clearly you didn't READ it) but you let me get in the way of your hatred of all things Islamic. If you want to bomb until the cows come home, just say so. Don't try to cloak it in some pseudo-intellectual analysis that writes off the will of 1.2 billion people to a handful of radicals and their manipulative governments.

Incidentally, the west has taken the "superior culture" route before and we all remember what happened to the last group of semites who got in the way.

Posted by: Peter Sams at February 18, 2006 01:42 AM

---

All we hear from the moderate Islam is the public condemnation that the radicals are just a few; it does nothing to ally the fears of the west.

The west punishes our radicals when they break the law.

Do we every see on MSM the imams/clerics that should be punished for contracting a hit list? Do we see those that destroy public property being arrested? The answer is NO.
It's because the moderates are too busy telling us it's our fault and they are praying for us.

They still haven't shown anyone where is it listed in the Qur'an that specifically says that images of Muhammad cannot be displayed.

Posted by: mikeh at February 18, 2006 02:50 AM

---

Standing almost alone and in defiance of my host and friend steve. [Who will not hate me anyway].

Enough with this free speech junk. There is no loss or risk to our free speech.

There is however a risk to our basic freedoms and we better take care of the real problem with the influx of more troops from more democratic countries.

The Jihadist riots and embassy burnings were encouraged and orchestrated with the help of the Emir of Quatar and his Al-Jazeera TV and radio networks.

The reason for inflaming the easily led crowds should be obvious. The same inflamation has been going on for 32 years against Israel.

Emirs and mullahs who enjoy absolute rule fear only peace and democracy.

Thousands of Iraqis risked death and severe injury, [re: purple fingers], to go out and vote.

The US, Canada and other nations owe these people the loyalty and protection required for their democratic government to take a foothold.

We owe it to ourselves as well, otherwise the Jihadists will label us as spineless dogs and they could be correct.

Support our troops. Don't let it happen.
TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 18, 2006 03:34 AM

---

"When are you going to post some of the appalling new photographs from Abu Ghraib?"

Good question, with an obvious answer, right? Angry is a coward. His failure to exercise freedom of speech here is because he is fearful, cowed, might lose his readership, etc., etc. Well, on the last one I may have a point.

I suggest, being serious for a moment, that he doesn't publish those pictures because they weaken the case for war in Iraq. That's his choice: it's an editorial decision.

And not publishing deliberately offensive cartoons is an editorial decision by newspaper editors who don't think that refusing to insult about a billion people is cowardice. Good taste, certainly. Decency, of course. They took a civilized decision, unlike that of the unspeakable Ezra Levant, more interested, I suspect, in boosting his circulation than anything else.

Canadian values include civilized behaviour. Levant, Angry and their friends, with their phoney "free speech crusade" (there are simply too many inconsistencies in this to record here) are, essentially, uncivilized. They are not much better than the Islamic ideologues that they so dislike.

It's not brave to offer gratuitous insults to other people from the safety of a keyboard. Levant and his crowd seem to think that bravery is equivalent to the kind of oh-so-daring stunts that school-age kids get into--you know, spray-painting offensive messages on walls, spitting on people from a rooftop, that kind of thing.

If freedom of speech has become reduced in the minds of conservatives to the exercise of a right to be hateful and offensive to others, I find that rather sad. And positively unCanadian.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 18, 2006 12:25 PM

---

What TG says about the Emirs and Mullahs is true, but just because the Jihadists (good term TG) are front and center in the news lately, doesn't mean the same thing doesn't happen in other groups.
It is true of dictators like Castro, Emirs of arab tribes/kingdoms, heads of labour unions, Church leadership, corporate executives, and even local service clubs.
The common element is that the leader has the responsibility of safeguarding the welfare of a group of people, but soon learns that personal benefit comes with the position, sometimes monetary, but always the narcotic of power.

Immediately when that happens, a conflict of interest exists; will the leader act for the people's benefit, or for his own?
When the two purposes coincide, there is not much harm.
If however, the priority is to feather his own nest to the detriment of the group, then the propoganda campaign begins. As long as the people can be fooled to believe he or she is acting for their benefit, then nobody will upset the apple cart.

Dictators convince the people that they are much better off under his protection.
Church leaders may keep the people spiritually dependent on their leadership.
Corporate CEOs may keep workers under the threat of losing their jobs.
Union leaders must stir up strife, because contented workers threaten his career.
And so on.

Of course this does not happen all the time, but the potential is always there.
We can simply trust in the integrity of our leader, or we can establish a set of checks and balances so that nefarious deeds cannot be hidden for long.

That is what a democracy does, or should do.
If conducted properly, a representative, parliamentary democracy leaves the power in the hands of the people, while their elected administration handles the business of running the country.

I'm not sure the same model can be applied to private corporations because there is a basic understanding that the activities of the company are for the express purpose of making a profit.

However, it can definitely be applied to nations, Churches and Unions.

Obviously, this idea is a threat to dictators who have been cheating their people all along, and they will use every tactic they can to fight against it;
Convince them that they are better off under his leadership.
Convince them that they will suffer immeasurably under a different regime.
Convince them that proponents of a democratic model are evil and represent the Great Satan.
Convince them that Conservatives will take away all your rights and will sacrifice your children's future.
Convince them that management wants to keep them underpaid to save money so they can drive their fancy cars and sail their yachts.

It's all the same folks.
And the only way to prevent it happening to you, is to pay attention to what is going on; research details; find the truth of every matter, and form your opinion objectively.
Then speak out early when you see corruption and manipulation. If you wait too long, then your voice becomes a threat to the corrupter, and you have a fatwa on your head.

Truth is power.
Darkness hides the truth.
Evil grows in the dark.
(thank you Terry Jacks)

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 18, 2006 01:08 PM

---

Sorry Dawg, you are way off base.
I may agree in part that Canada is a civilized country with delicate sensitivities, the harsh reality is that many people don't respect that.
If you really believe that standing by and doing nothing while Saddam Hussein rapes his country and murders his people, would be the civilised thing to do, then I'm sorry, we will never agree.

The argument that it is none of our business what Saddam chose to do in his own country, is the antithesis of civilised behaviour.
A basic tenet of "civilization" is that we look out for the best interests of our neighbour, not just our own self-interests. And we initially show deference to a neighbour who has offended us in minor ways.

Human rights go beyond national sovereignty.
If there is nothing we can do, we can only stand helplessly by and shout from a distance.
But if there is something that can be done, then it is our duty as human beings to act.

Hook, line, and sinker, you have bought the lie that the U.S. was the aggressor in Iraq, and Saddam is the unfortunate innocent victim.

You exploit every mistake that is made along the way as if it was proof that the whole war on terror is a fraud. You parrot the lies of the very criminals whose crimes are being exposed and brought to the light of global scrutiny.

I don't know any government in the world that is perfect; not the U.S., not Canada, and not Iraq.
But the errors in intelligence, the poor judgement of some prison guards, the unfortunate loss of innocent lives when destroying military targets, do nothing to alter the fact that terrorists must be stopped, and we can't back down every time they surround themselves with women and children.
People continue to die as a result of homicide bombers, misled by the lies and propoganda of the very same people who commit the atrocities against their own people.
It is madness. It is mob mentality whipped into a frenzy by the terrorist leaders, who use the faith of the people to manipulate them.

Step back, get the big picture, and prove for yourself that the complaints of leaders are really self-serving as they desperately try to protect their corrupt little kingdoms.

See for yourself that the immense wealth of countries like Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states is not reflected in the standard of living the common people experience. Unless you are favoured by your ruling family, you live at a subsistence level, and slavery is common.
Where is justice in that?

Now I would not approve of the U.S. or Britain or any other country, invading a sovereign nation based on it's economic imbalances, or civil social structure.
But when universally understood human rights are flagrantly violated, some action must be taken.

Anti-American voices who enjoy condemning the U.S. for unilaterally deciding to use military action against Iraq, conveniently forget or ignore the fact that it was only after more than a decade of diplomatic negotiation, and economic sanctions by the United Nations failed to have any effect.
Saddam continued to rape, torment, and murder Iraqis, all to keep a powerful stranglehold on his empire.
How can you look in the faces of Iraqi women who suffered so horribly, and children who watched their parents hacked to pieces before their young eyes, and justify to them that we waited so long to act, let alone waiting longer.
How many similar faces could we have helped if only we had acted more quickly in Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, Biafra, Uganda, Indonesia, Germany, Poland, South Africa, Zimbabwe, China. The list goes on with examples where we were late in helping, or took no action at all.
Perhaps they were no resources or political will to get involved in some of these historical events.
I don't know.
But I guarantee to you, and you are a liar if you deny it, that those same prisoners at Abu Ghraib or at Gitmo, would have been tortured, beheaded and worse, if the common people of Iraq had been allowed to take out their revenge upon them.

I am disgusted by the photos I have seen, and believe that prison officials went too far in humiliating the prisoners sexually.
But the harsh truth is that these are not innocent men, and they hold knowledge that could prevent many more lives being lost in terrorist actions, and this knowledge will not be obtained by asking politely.

There is a greater good being served, and while I do not believe the end justifies the means, the end is still justified.

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at February 18, 2006 02:20 PM

---

...oh what the hey...

"To all Muslim leaders, rioters in Middle Eastern countries, national news media outfits...

GROW UP WILL YA!!!"

Posted by: tomax at February 18, 2006 03:01 PM

---

Dr Dawg, Please do not suggest that the ugliest of human crime should bo posted on this blogsite.

Those intolerable digusting graphics are numerous around the web. There is nothing to be gained by re-posting them here or the carttoons for that matter.

I have the image of a dead child with a 4 inch hole in her forhead burned in my brain. There is no need to see it here again.

Steve will post what he wants to, but going downhill profits no one.

More troops committed to Afghanistan and Iraq
will contribute to peace and democracy there.

That is what they want. They risked their lives and purple thumbs to vote for it and we should not let them down. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 18, 2006 07:19 PM

---

It is truly amazing what one finds when clicking on links within stories or areas of interest! Like many I'v wondered about both the timing and the degree of manipulation occuring in the 'spontaneous outbreaks of Muslim rage' over the 'cartoons' (properly caricatures, of course).

Feel free to check the following blog from a writer in Cairo, Egypt; who reveals another side to the controversy!

The 'lead in' below is his:
Rantings of a Sandmonkey
Be forewarned: The writer of this blog is an extremely cynical, snarky, pro-US, secular, libertarian, disgruntled sandmonkey. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please sod off

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

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

Where was the outrage when the same 'caricatures' were printed in Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr back in October 2005 - during Ramadan, no less? Inquiring minds should want to know.

Posted by: Randy O'Donnell at February 18, 2006 08:09 PM

---

Peter Sams wrote: "there are simply people here who are as bigoted as the Muslims."

and "if they don't learn to coexist with others - not as conquered people or as threats, but as equals."

Peter is pretty transparent from your post that you have already condemned me and others who take a similar positions as being "bigoted as the Muslims" despite any evidence. Questioning is not the equivalent to threatening. Providing facts with appropriate sources is not hatred.

I have no objection to having Muslim families in my neighbourhood, nor to working with or being a customer of Muslims. I carry no economic, social or cultural bias towards Muslims who wish to integrate and be part of the Canadian fabric.

Where pray tell is my "hatred of all things Islamic." The "1.2 billion people" may be living under "a handful of radicals and their manipulative governments.", but those radicals and clerics are a cancer in their midst and they themselves should excise them from their midst.

I thought you might find this Islamic website interesting. Many have long postulated that Islamiscists are embarrassed and humiliated that their 'culture' has not advanced in the last many hundred years and that rather than blaming themselves and their religious leaders, they find comfort in demonizing the west.

Note in the 'What is taught' and 'What should be taught' about science, they start in the ninth century and finish listing their 'inventions' in the 14th century.

I don't make this stuff up. It's directly from their own websites.

http://www.missionislam.com/science/record.htm

What has been discovered or invented in the seven centuries since? Inquiring minds want to know.

Still feel all cultures are equal?

Posted by: Randy O'Donnell at February 18, 2006 08:30 PM

---

"What has been discovered or invented in the seven centuries since? Inquiring minds want to know."

You could as easily ask how much scientific progress was stifled while the Western World was under the Papal thumb over the first millenium and a half? Or speculate how much momentum could be lost if the 'anti-Darwinists' get their way in the ongoing "Intelligent Design" debates (If they get their way on this, do you really think they'll stop there?)

History teaches that the unwashed, ignorant masses are more easily manipulated and controlled if the educated elite keep them unwashed and ignorant; and it teaches that knowledge is more easily suppressed (or controlled) when it's declared 'blasphemous'...

...or 'unpatriotic'.

Blasphemous cartoons, unpatriotic suppression of free speech... keeps us nicely distracted, don't you think?

Ask yourselves this:

While we and the Muslims are venting all of our respective outrage over this, what are our leaders doing? The resources are there, do the research.

Posted by: DFChant at February 18, 2006 11:32 PM

---

You want respect, earn it!

Posted by: Agent Orange at February 18, 2006 11:50 PM

---

The enthymeme in the Muslim protests to the cartoons is that the entire world is subject to Sahria law. If I, a non-Muslim, communicate an image of Mohammed to another non-Muslim, this is an insult to Isalm punishable by death. How so? No Muslim has blasphemed or risked falling into idolatry.
The unstated assumption is that we are subject to their theocratic regime. That is the frightening part of all this. I understand Orthodox Jews have a taboo about saying or representing the name of their god, but they don't go torching people because non-Jews mention the name to each other.
The point hit home to me when I saw a sign at one the Muslim cartoon demonstrations that said something like, Islam says to respect other religions. So what. I'm atheist. I respect their right to have faith the moon is cheese, if they choose, but I have no respect for them inciting violence because I cause them offence when I say the moon is just rock and dust.
I value scientific reasearch that shows how susceptibility to religious-type beliefs are side-effects of other cognitive adaptations (Pascal Boyer's work, for example). No such research could take place under Islamic law I would guess--it is intrinsically uncomfortable for Islam and other religions. Saudi Arabia cannot even tolerate toy animals for children--my cousin's children had theirs confiscated when they moved there--seems Muslims might fall into idolatry if they saw my cousin's six-year old daughter's teddy bear on her bed.
How would the Muslim world react, for example, to uncomfortable DNA discoveries, such as the ones that are creating a stir for Mormons at the moment. Should we stop DNA research because Mormons are upset? It has been recently noted that although the Arab world has about 300 million people and Israel about 5 million, Israel generates about six times as many papers published in peer-reviewed science publications as does the entire Arab world, despite the trillions in oil revenue received by Arab states, far exceeding the GDP of Israel. I am an athiest with tremendous respect for Israel and the Jews. I am waiting for the Muslim world to earn my respect.
I think it is a mistake to view the free speech issue without examining the tectonic plates colliding below the surface. These are very troubling times.

Posted by: Murray at February 19, 2006 03:02 PM

---

Dawg-ie boy, fascists like you always have an excuse why freedom of speech should be suppressed. Sensibilities, respect, sure all the things that you offer to people you are afraid of, more like cowardice I say. You say you are a socialist, more like the nationalist variety I think.

Posted by: Phil Degeneris at February 19, 2006 09:00 PM

---

If he means that we "deeply respect" Islam in the way we believe strongly in freedom of religion then why can't he be correct in this statement? Without the fear-factor that is boiling higher than usual, if moderate muslums who shrugged the cartoons off as off-target or mis-aligned were to have been the norm we would continue to defend the right for people to choose Islam as a religion as much as we defend the right of any other.

Since you are only criticising this one quote, I just think this specific criticism is slightly misplaced. I think it's important to be specific here to avoid lashing out at Clinton over something specific when it's his broad opinions we disagree with. I'm certain you must recognize that there are many of us in the western world who have and continue to live with Islamic friends and neighbours who have little interest on imposing Sharia law on us, or acting out in violence.

It is not simply Islam that we fear, it's the violent force of 'fundamental Islam'. Just as Christians mostly shrug their shoulders in frustration as the distain and criticisms they receive from others, those fundamentalist followers of Islam who are taking violent action must also find a way to practice their own beliefs in a manner that lends itself to peaceful co-existance just as the majority of Christians have.

A peaceful Muslum shouldn't be any more difficult to envision than a peaceful Christian. If the political reality could be seperated so clearly there's little reason to hold any disrespect for Islam; too bad the two are so intwined.

Posted by: Anon at February 20, 2006 08:00 AM

---