text:
» babble » current events » the media » Western Standard IV
Email this thread to someone!
Author Topic: Western Standard IV
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
posted 26 February 2006 12:48 AM
I am assuming we can expect the Western Standard to organize a march to commerorate the hanging of Louis Riel through a Metis neighbourhood in support of the rights to free expression and association given the recent uncivilized and violent behavior of Irish Catholics and US African-Americans to nothing more harmful than a simple demonstration:
The first loyalist march in Dublin since Partition had to be rerouted after thousands of republican protesters rioted in the centre of the Irish capital yesterday, with several Irish police among 40 people injured.
The main thoroughfare, O'Connell Street, became a battle zone as up to 2,000 rioters tore up building materials being used in major renovation work in the road and hurled them at Irish police. Shops and hotels closed their doors, and at least three Irish police were taken to hospital as rioters hurled scaffolding poles, bricks, slates and rocks at their lines.
Imagine ...
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Fistfights broke out and police made 17 arrests Saturday at a neo-Nazi rally and march through a predominantly black Florida neighbourhood.
It's just a march ...
How soon will the Western Standard be prepared to defend these freedoms in Alberta?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005 | IP: Logged
voice of the damned
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same degree of animosity toward Le Devoir, the Jewish Free Press, and that student newspaper in PEI?
From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004 | IP: Logged
Hephaestion
[drift]
I mis-read the title of this thread... at first I thought it said, "Western Standard TV", and I was horrified -- OMG!! They're not on television now! Just imagine my relief...
[/drift]
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004 | IP: Logged
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
Isn't it obvious that the Western Standard published the cartoons to attack a non-Christian faith under the guise of free speech?
Alternatively I have heard that the Western Standard decided to sensationalize some stories, the cartoons , Ralph Klein's wife, etc., in an attempt to increase circulation as Levant was/is heading for bankruptcy with his publication.
Take your pick.
I cannot speak for the other publications although it is possible they may have done it to inform and/or for educational purposes.
[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]
skdadl
Babbler # 478
Good night! I don't know what that confrontation in Dublin has to do with the Western Standard, but I had no idea these things were happening.
That is certainly a good example of massive provocation by a small group of ideologues in a place where they don't belong, a place that has been utterly peaceful for over a generation and where these battles are completely out of context. I mean, it is the Ulster Unionists who believe that Ulster belongs to the UK, who don't want union with Eire - so what the hell makes them believe they have the right to parade in Dublin? They can't have it both ways.
I wish 4t2 would show up to explain these things to us. I'm really shocked that this could happen in Dublin at this point.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged
posted 26 February 2006 12:31 PM
Left Coast wrote:
But if the cartoons themselves are considered hate speech against Muslims, does it matter under what guise they are published?
Perhaps. But would a Muslim look at the cartoons in Le Devoir and say "ahh, this is just an attempt to inform and educate the public"? Clearly, most newspapers in Canada DON'T think that their Muslim readers would take it that way, because they(with the exception of the four I mentioned) they've all refused to publish the cartoons.
[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]
Babbler # 12096
I think that it is unreasonable to call the cartoon prophets "hate speech". Heresy and irreverence are normal and acceptable in the western cultures and the cartoon prophets are really mild compared to some stuff. I think the extreme overreactions are more dangerous than any drawing could be, even a really obnoxious one.
From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged
I think that it is unreasonable to call the cartoon prophets "hate speech". Heresy and irreverence are normal and acceptable in the western cultures and the cartoon prophets are really mild compared to some stuff. I think the extreme overreactions are more dangerous than any drawing could be, even a really obnoxious one. Marzo
What the cartoon depicted is stereotyping and prejudice and only inspires feelings of disgust, if not plain hate.
Nobody is talking about heresy. That does not apply to people who do not share the targeted faith. A heresy perhaps if the cartoons have been drawn by Muslims, but not in the case of non-Muslims. In fact how often have you seen Muslims in Europe or North America running after non-Muslims for eating pork or drinking alcohol.
It is European and islamophobic media spin to make believe that these Muslims are trying to impose their own codes on non-Muslims.
To depict Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist IS the issue. Had the cartoon shown Mohammed refusing entry to "Heaven" to terrorists, say, telling them you usurped and abused my mission, I doubt if there would have been any criticism, let alone violence. After all, there has been drawings of Prophet Mohammed by Muslims and non-Muslims before, with or without face particulars shown.
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged
Animosity? What animosity? Surely the Western Standard, beinga beacon of freedom of expression, would only wish to demonstrate solidarity with those who are meeting violent resistance when marching in specific areas around the globe.
And if Le Devoir, the Jewish Free Press, and that student newspaper in PEI, also published the cartoons because of a solidarity with free expression, then yes, they should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazis and chauvinists of all sorts who merely wish to express their rights to free expression. Don't you?
David Irving was just convicted in Austria for denying the holocaust. What is a prohibition against denying the holocuast if not a restriction on freedom of speech for reasons only that such a denial is deeply offensive to some people?
If those four newspapers are truly committed to freedom of speech, they would re-print Irving's denials in solidarity with his right to speak freely.
Don't you think so?
PissChrist
recent-rabble-rouser
How can anyone refer to the cartoon as depicting Mohammod as a terrorist? According the the CBC, anyone blowing themself up in a busload of women and children is a 'militant'.
From: mecca | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged
Cueball
So you want to rename "smart bombs," "militant bombs," is that what you are saying?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged
NO, no. I just find it interesting that the cbc drones can actually say the word 'terrorist', without their heads exploding.
It's really quite a break through in what passes for journalism on the cbc.
'lance
Please do not feed the troll.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
posted 12 March 2006 12:10 PM
Oh well, here are a few scattered crumbs:
The Toronto demonstrators marched in front of the Danish consulate, where former TV news anchor Peter Kent said "any democracy worth its salt should be strong enough to endure the most controversial speech."
Kent represented the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, which seeks to change Canadian policy that they say "consistently fails to support sister democracies who share our values," such as India, Taiwan, the U.S. and Israel.
Newzcorp
So when did Canadians say nobody had the right to publish offensive or inflammatory material? Rights aren't the question; judgement is.
Larry Flynt and Ezra Levant can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't whine about the reactions they cause.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003 | IP: Logged
C.Morgan
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
The reactions they cause?
Sorry, the responsibity for the violence, and calls for beheading fall solely on the shoulders of the reactionaries.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004 | IP: Logged
No doubt about it; I hear they had to call out city crews to clean up all the misplaced crania strewn all over Yonge Street after the last round of beheadings.
Saying that the reactors are responsible for the reaction doesn't preclude saying that the publishers shouldn't whine about it.
A couple of weeks ago was a major patriotic holiday in Korea, commemorating an uprising against the Japanese. Suppose I had gone down to the local drinking tent to sing Japanese songs with a Rising Sun t-shirt on. Would anyone on babble be sympathetic if I got hit in the head by a flying soju bottle?
I believe I said called for beheadings.
[IMG] http://tinypic.com/z1[/IMG]
Keep up that apologism though.
That picture is clearly of a rational protest of the cartoons.
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Oh, you are completely correct of course. For example, you are not responsible at all for the reactions to screaming the exact same statement in say, a Taliban Mosque in Afghanistan. After you have done that, come back to the thread. Again, we are talking judgement not law here.
You might want to read a few of the previous 300+ posts on the topic.
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004 | IP: Logged
No Yards
[IMG] ]http://tinypic.com/z1[/IMG]
Nothing wrong with calling for beheading ... same thing as calling for the death penalty is it not?
Keep up attempting to apply those double standards though.
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged
Well, my father favoured the death penalty for murder. I disagreed with him, quite strongly, but I can still think that he was an overall okay guy.
But if my father had favoured the death penalty for drawing offensive pictures, I'd think he was a pretty fucked-up loser.
[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]
I wholeheartedly support the concept that each and every person needs to take full responsibility for their emotional reactions. It is one of the few freedoms of choice no one can tamper with.
Having said that, until full consciousness is achieved by the human race it is still good advice not to shout 'fire' when surrounded by people toting guns or to poke one's nose into a hornet's nest.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged
Where is the solidarity with freedom of speech on this issue:
The Second Death of Rachel Corrie
In fact, where is the reporting, even?
It seems offending Islam is a far more courageous stand to take than defending literature that commemorates one brave life.
I too disagree with a death penalty, but since there was no one actually calling for the beheading of anyone at the Western Standard for drawing a picture, we should assume that C. Morgan was speaking about death penalties / beheading in general, and not referring to a real incident of calls for death for non western type capital crimes.
In other words, two strawmen were built ... there are two ways of dealing with a strawman: pointing out that it is a strawman; or turning it against the builder. In the case of C. Morgan's strawman I choose to turn it against him. In the case of your strawman I choose to expose it for what it is.
we should assume that C. Morgan was speaking about death penalties / beheading in general
I assumed that he was referring to another anti-cartoon rally, where people did in fact call for the beheading of the cartoonists. That rally is mentioned in this article:
http://tinyurl.com/ks978
'This is the Muslim community,' said the rally chairman, Anaf Altikriti, of the Muslim Association of Britain. 'Not a handful of people claiming vile things like those last Friday.' He was referring to protesters who took to the streets of London with placards embracing al-Qaeda and calling for the beheading of non-believers.
posted 13 March 2006 12:03 AM
Anti-abortion crusaders often call for capital punishment against the "Abortionsists" no one suggests that these people are anything less than a minority of Christian opinion on this issue. It is certainly not elevated to the status of international criminal threat, but is usually construed as the ravings of a few loonies.
Cueball wrote:
As far as I can tell, Morgan never said(at least on this thread) that the people calling for beheadings were an international criminal threat. He simply said that they are responsible for their own reactions.
Well Morgan's comment was in response to a comment about Larry Flynt and Ezra Levant, which in turn was a comment about Peter Kent speaking in Toronto ... so if he was referring to an incident in London, that that is another strawman ... after all, the title of this thread is "Western Standard IV", which I assume even though it has an "IV" in it, refers to a Canadian magazine and some obscure King of England.
That said, I still stand by my belief that the Western Standard's only reason for publishing that literature was one of a purposeful attempt to provoke violence. They failed, but I think as would be the case where someone hires a hitman to kill someone and the hit fails, they should still be held responsible for their attempted crime.
The point is that this issue, in particular this one sign, by one Muslim in Great Britain is constantly raised as an example of general Muslim opinion on the issue, as if all Quebec seperatists were represented by the opinions of the FLQ. This is clearly not the case. It is a distortion of the general sense of Muslim opinion, and one greatly exagerated by the media looking for good copy, and feeds into the often irrational deomization of Muslim people.
Everyone is responsible for their own reactions ... no one is claiming that they are not. The question is, can anyone else ALSO (very important word here this "ALSO" word, so please don't ignore it) be held responsible for provoking someone elses reactions.
I say there are many cases where this is a legitimate point of law. That's obvious simply by looking at hate laws, and conspiracy laws. Now you may want to believe that if you hire a hitman to kill me, you should hold no responsibility under the protection of "free speech", but I don't think you would get very far with that kind of argument.
Within that context, I take your point. I guess I was assuming that "Ezra Levant" was being used as a stand-in for anyone who published the cartoons.
But if "Ezra Levant" is supposed to just mean Ezra Levant, I do wonder what exactly Larry Flynt was doing riding shotgun with him. I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it as meaning "controversial publsihers in general".
But if "Ezra Levant" is supposed to just mean Ezra Levant, I do wonder what exactly Larry Flynt was doing riding shotgun with him. I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret it as meaning "controversial publishers in general".
We could very well be referring to "controversial publishers in general". Which would still have nothing to do with a protester in London with a "beheading sign" ... would it?
When I refer to the Western standard I mean specifically the Western Standard ... of all the publishers of this cartoon, the one publisher that I believe I know enough to make an educated judgement on their motives is the Western Standard ... and the fact that they hired extra security before they published is a good clue that they were expecting to stir up violence ... I only hope the extra cost they incurred to protect themselves from the nonexistent violence puts them out of business (again.)
Okay. Let's say we're in a bar, and you say to me "see that guy at over there? That's Wally, and he gets really violent if someone mentions his ex-wife. Look at my cell phone, I made this film I made of him going nuts". So, after looking at the footage, I go over to Wally, and say "So how's your ex-wife?" Wally responds by smashing a beer bottle over the head of a passing waitress. Okay, I will say that I bear some repsonsiblity for the way in which that situation turned out.
2nd scenario: We're in a bar, and you say to me "you know, a lot of these middle-aged divorced guys get really pissed off if you mention their ex-wives. A few of them have even been known to get violent". Several days later, I overhear a guy on the bus talking on his cellphone to his divorce lawyer, and when he finishes the call I walk over to him and say "so how's your ex-wife"? The guy responds by whacking a beaning a passing child in the face with his watch.
Now am I equally responsible in both cases? I don't think so. In the first example, I have detailed and verified information about how one specific man responds to certain provocations, and I choose to deliver the provocation anyway. So yeah, I can't claim that I didn't know what the result would be.
But in the second instance, all I've been told is that "a lot of" divorced men get angry if you mention their ex-wives, and that "a few of them" get violent. But I had know way of knowing whether or not the guy on the bus was one of the minority of men who get violent simply from hearing their ex-wife mentioned. And even if you suspect that I was playing the odds and HOPING to find a walking time bomb, I don't see how you could ever prove that in court.
I would submit to you that the position of the Western Standard editors was the same as mine in the second story. The only way their actions could be comparable to the "Wally" story is if it were known for a fact that every Muslim were a potential "Wally", and the Western Standard editors had something close to incontrovertible proof that some Canadian Muslims would react violently to the publsihing of the cartoons.
And anyway: since WS would probably have been the No. 1 target of any violent backlash that resulted from publication, it doesn't really make sense to think that they wanted such a violent backlash to occur. The Freedom Riders who went to the Deep South in the 1960s were trained to deal with violent mobs, but that doesn't mean that they WANTED the violence to occur.
(And I'm not comparing the WS ideology to that of the Freedom Riders).
and the fact that they hired extra security before they published is a good clue that they were expecting to stir up violence
This still doesn't prove that they WANTED the violence to occur. See my "freedom riders" example above.
I meant Ezra Levant, but then remembered how Larry Flynt was almost murdered during one of his court cases; y'know, when he was trying to defend free speech for everybody (including Muslims, I'll bet), not just for those whose attitudes were generally acceptable.
OK, I'll quote this post of yours as it is smaller and less editing to do, but I will refer to both of your posts.
Fist, I more or less agree with the examples you stated, but I would add that there is no need for there to actually be violence in order for you to be considered committing a criminal act ... for instance in your first example, if you have expected there to be violence, just because you did not archive your goal does not mean you cannot be held responsible ... take my example of hiring a hitman for example ... the hitman does not need to actually commit an act of violence in order for you to be found guilty of a crime.
Now, I think we can both agree then, that there are indeed ways in which your "free speech", when it causes violence can be held against you as a crime ... and indeed there are times when your free speech, even though it results in violence cannot be help against you.
In the case of the WS, I did not actually say they were guilty, I said they should be investigated as to their intentions, intentions which may have been to provoke violence.
Now, you are correct in saying that the most likely initial violence would have been against them, but I submit that this does not matter. Provoking violence is provoking violence. Additionally, I would also submit that in the case of the WS, they would have been more than over-joyed to see their business violently attacked by a group of Muslims, after which they would have had all the ammo they needed to fuel their anti-Muslim crusade, and probably plenty of donations to rebuild from like minded hate mongers.
Now, as to their actual guilt ... first let me make it clear that I do not say they are guilty, just that they should be investigated to look into any information that might point to their believing that their actions were likely to cause violence. Given their anti-Muslim backgrounds, their hiring of extra security, their lack of commitment to free speech except where the free speech can be used against hated minorities, I think that questioning their motivation is an acceptable response ... now I am under no illusion that there is much hope of finding any such evidence, but I figure if Sunera Thobani could be marked for investigation for hate speech when she criticized the USA for their response to 9/11, then surely the WS can as well.
guilty-pleasure
By definition, no. Once you're taking responsibility for your own emotions, there's no "provocation" to concern ourselves with. Taking responsibility for your reaction, and allowing yourself to be provoked, are opposites.
Note that by "provoke", I'm referring to ideology — something offensive or blasphemous — and not violence. Obviously if someone walks up and punches you the reaction is more than just emotional.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002 | IP: Logged
Yes Magoo, I see your point, and it reminds me of a though provoking line from a favourite song:
"in heaven there is no beer
that's why we drink it all here"
unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, we do not actually live in your perfect world were no one can be provoked, and we have to "suffer" through the temptation of beer.
I figure if Sunera Thobani could be marked for investigation for hate speech when she criticized the USA for their response to 9/11, then surely the WS can as well.
Well, if you want to take the obviously frivolous and probably malicious harassment of Sunera Thobani as your precedent, then okay sure, haul Levant and Company into court as well. But frankly all the Thobani case does for me is demonstrate that my opposition to the "hate speech" laws is well-founded, not that we need further enforcement of them.
And anyway, since Alberta Report magazine once did me the honour of spelling my name properly in an interview(I have a name that's often misspelled), I shall now return the favour by writing their rebuttal to the "hate speech" charges that you seem to think should be brought against their spawn:
"Look, we published those photos because they were a news item, and we thought we had a responsibility to the public to inform them of the issue. Why did we hire the extra security? Because sometimes people who do what they think is morally right provoke a violent response. That doesn't mean we WANT to have people attack us, any more than Henry Morgantaler hiring security for his clinic proves that he wants to be firebombed. And as for this supposed history of anti-Muslim bigotry: please. If we were publishing serious anti-Muslim stuff, shouldn't we have racked up a string of "hate speech" convictions by now? And anyway, the Canadian Jewish News doesn't take the most pro-Muslim spin on things, why aren't they being charged for publishing the cartoons?"
(see below for link to CJN's take on "Muslim terror")
And before I get accused of handing ammo to Western Report, trust me: these are the arguments they'd be making in court, and in all likelihood the court would buy them.
But anyway, I'm not complaining. If this case did make it to the courts, it would be tossed out after a feeble prosecution, and that would be one more nail in the coffin of the "hate speech" law's credibility.
The Canadian Jewish News "Dry Bones" cartoon on "Muslim terror":
http://tinyurl.com/j45sw
unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, we do not actually live in your perfect world were no one can be provoked
Obviously, if people continue to indulge their emotions. We don't live in a perfect world in any sense whatsoever, but it's something to strive for.
And at least it puts the onus in the right place.
That is an relatively racist cartoon. It is sad that the Jylland-Posten affair has opened the gates to more racial bigotry.
Once you're taking responsibility for your own emotions, there's no "provocation" to concern ourselves with.
So a law against sedition should be stricken from the books?
[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
Originally posted by Cueball:
Uh oh. Better get the fire extinguishers out.
Well you know it is sad that one of the primary organs of the Jewish community should be publishing cartoons about "Islamic Terrorism."
Need I point out that if I were to publish a cartoon about "Jewish Terrorism" the self-same magazine would denounce me as an anti-semite.
You mean all those Jewish suicide bombers?
The ones blowing up trains and subways in Europe and towers in New York?
Either way, if you published cartoons about Jewish terrorists, do you think there would be riots and burned embassies around the world by Jewish protestors?
Cueball, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today? There is nothing racist about that cartoon. And if you were to publish a similar cartoon about Jewish terrorism (Jewish Defence League, or the right-wing murderers of the kind that assassinated Rabin, or the Mossad death squads...), only a nutbar would denounce that as "anti-semitic".
What was offensive (IMHO) about the Danish cartoons is that they portrayed Islam as terrorist -- the stock in trade of rightwing racists like Daniel Pipes. If you published a cartoon showing rabbis in a synagogue with an Arab chained to a Torah, or hiding bits of Israel's nuclear arsenal, that to me would be an equivalent offensive attack.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged
Ok lets discuss Jewish terrorism. Here is the thread. I have started with a nice picture taken in 1982
Have a nice day gentlemen.
OK list a few hundred current examples and perhaps we will be talking.
Either way, what I am contesting is how some people feel they need to be apologists for nuts who riot and burn places over a CARTOON.
I doubt we shall see Jews rioting over your depiction of what you consider their terrorism.
Hate to break it to ya, Cube, but Drybones has been like that for awhile now. Can't pin this on the Danish cartoonists.
Here's a Drybones from 1998:
http://tinyurl.com/ev8pa
(Warning: this cartoon will probably be offensive to most people on babble)
Palestinian shepherd wounded by Jewish settlers
Two Palestinian men murdered by IOF, three, including two children, wounded
Israeli soldiers kill three Palestinians in Nablus, seriously injure child in Gaza
Palestinian farmers face settler terror
For your information Mr. Morgan 100 Palestinian were killed in the Jenin refugee camp when Israel invaded the west bank. Since 2001 invasion, while the lives of 1500 Israelis have been taken by Palestinians over 5000 Palestinian were killed, many of them children. Thousands more have been wounded, in attacks such as this:
Seven children killed as Israelis assassinate military chief
Israeli F-16 warplanes bombed the house of the military commander of Hamas in Gaza City last night, burying him and at least 11 other Palestinians, including seven children, beneath the rubble of a four-storey block of flats, and wounding 120 others.
Yeah, the western standard denies knowingly provoking violence and claims it was simply reporting the news ... who'd a guessed?
What were you expecting, that if you asked them they were going to say ... "shit, how'd you find out what we were really up to?"
OK, I tend to agree with you on the "hate speech" laws ... people should be free to express their opinions as ugly and hateful as they might be, and anyone else should be free to rebuke and ridicule those opinions as ugly and as fiercely as they wish ... the only limit I would place on the right would be when provable lies are told, and where there is a clear case of attempting to provoke violence against a specific group (or "by a specific group" as the case may be to prevent "suicide hate speech" where the objective is to martyr yourself to "inspire" others to violence and hatred ... or like when the Nazi's used the burning of the Reichstag, or burnt it themselves, to inspire hatred against the communists.)
I'm not saying they did this, but I certainly have no problem imagining the WS group sitting around the table rubbing their hands in glee trying to figure out how they can use this issue to discredit Islam and Muslims.
As for Morgantaler and the CJN":
Morgantaler as I recall didn't hire security until after he was firebombed, not in the expectation that his actions would cause violence.
The CJN? I don't think they are widely read by Muslims, nor do I believe hold big media announcements promoting the fact they are reprinting racist hate promoting cartoons. Of course this is more a question for the people who enforce the hate laws ... if it were up to me, the WS, the CJN, and any other media outlets, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular, or other, be held to higher standards than they are now when it comes to the publishing of hate material ... if they want to publish information disparaging a whole group, race, religion, etc. then they better have some pretty well researched material to back up their assertions.
You want to publish facts or opinion, go ahead and may the Gods of free speech protect you on your travels ... want to dress up opinion as fact and promote hatred? Then I hope you burn in hell, but before you do may you rot in prison for many years first.
Originally posted by No Yards:
So in other words people who react violently win.
If I offend somebody who is inclined to being violent and I get assaulted, it is my fault.
Forget it.
Violence is the fault of the perpetrator of the violence.
So when the Klan marched through a black, southern neighbourhood, and blacks rioted as a response, the blacks are to blame for behaving badly to an otherwise, legal march? Blacks should sit aside and behave themselves when the Klan marches through their neighbourhoods, right?
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
We are not talking about the Klan marching.
We are talking about a cartoon.
Yes. If the march is legal, and a black person throws a brick(let's say) at the marchers, he is guilty of assault, and can be arrested. Just like in my earlier example, the Korean who throws the bottle at my head for waving around the Rising Sun in a soju tent is also guilty of assault.
Now, whether anyone should have a whole lot of sympathy for either me or for the Klansman is another story.
Levant gives the anthill another kick.
skeptikool
I was puzzled by the two following consecutive posts. After 'lance's admonition, I searched the thread for his/her own views, profound or otherwise, on the topic, but came up with nothing.
Perhaps I was wrong in believing PissChrist to be the "troll" referred to.
If the CBC is reticent in its use of the word "terrorist" in reference to suicide bombers, it may be because it feels it would have to attach that name to those in the many situations where state-sanctioned killings are conducted:
From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged
This always slays me...
But don't trouble Soharwardy with the facts or the law -- or anything as trivial as the Charter guarantee of a free press.
I've never been quite able to figure out whether Levant is a classical liberal or a SoCon. Maybe there is no narrow contradiction in his citing the Charter of Rights. However, safe to say that a good chunk of his comrades at the Report/Standard Empire have done everything in their power to undermine the Charter since its inception.
I'd argue that the KKK is a defacto cartoon.
The argument isn't of the method used to provoke violence, the argument is the provocation and the intent behind the act.
If the KKK go out and get a permit to march, meet all the requirements for a peaceful march, and someone attacks them, then I suppose I would have to grudgingly say that the person attacking the scum should face the law and consequences thereof. On the other hand, if the KKK wants to run around in random black neighbourhoods with no warning, and get a brick or two in the face, I think any resulting violence is a shared responsibility.
Look, the law in almost every civilized country provides that you can be held responsible, along with the person committing the violence for any number of reasons. Sometimes, even if the violence never actually happens, you, the instigator, can still be held responsible for conspiracy to commit a crime.
Now, you can argue that a specific case does not rise to meet the requirements, but you can't argue that the law does not exist, or that it exists but cannot apply to violence instigated by a cartoon. If it can be instigated by words, and pictures, then it can be instigated by a cartoon.
Sometimes, even if the violence never actually happens, you, the instigator, can still be held responsible for conspiracy to commit a crime.
This is true, and you've been hammering this point pretty hard, but you keep leaving out the lynchpin of it: the results of any "instigation" must be reasonable. None of the violence resulting from the publishing of a few drawings was reasonable.
No. The KKK are a group of idiots who put on hoods and assault people.
A cartoon is ink on paper.
Not an excuse to burn embassies and riot.
So what? We are still talking about freedom of speech. Are you suggesting a cartoon is a more credible freedom of speech issue than a march? What about Nazis in a Jewsih neighbourhood? Free speech? Or no?
It was just a Swastika and before WWII:
They don swastika badges. They encourage others to wear armbands, or paint the hooked cross on shirts, shorts or bare chests. Young females pin swastikas to their bathing suits.
Groups of young Jewish males arrive, to help keep the beaches cleared of "undesirables." (Of course, the two groups hold slightly different perspectives on what constitutes "undesirables.")
"We drove out there," one Jewish participant later recalled, "and we ran up on the beach and we tore the bathing suits off these girls, stripped them completely, we did everything. We took bats, not real baseball bats, but we took little wooden paddles. And we paddled their rear-ends for doing this and all that. They were screaming bloody murder. And we called them all Hitlerites."
Christie Pits Riots -- in Toronto
Jewish extremists over reacting to a symbol or provocation? I am assuming C.Morgan would argue it was a violent over reaction by extremists. Or at least there was no excuse to riot.
How could anyone defend ripping the bathing suits off of women, even over a swastika pin?
Over the top and unnecesary, yes. Doesn't mean they had no right to be angry, or to do something else, but I'm afraid their reaction bordered on sexual assault.
People keep looking to have two wrongs making a right on this one.
Either ban the piss Christ, or allow the cartoons.
Its the same thing.
I dont support violent riots on either.
Some here insist on trying to blame the victim.
The people at fault for rioting are the rioters.
The people at fault for arson are those striking the matches.
It was a cartoon. Not worthy of riots and buring embassies.
This is what provoked that thread? A cartoon that someone posted from the CJN as a way of demonstrating the racism in the cartoon, and a couple of posts by C.Morgan in this thread claiming that he didn't have a problem with it, and you think that's cause to start a new, racist thread about "Jewish terrorism" and claim that equating Muslims with terrorists has been given a pass on babble?
Now, I have done a google search on "Islamic terrorism" on babble, and most of the hits that come up are threads that I've never seen before.
But you're right, there are quite a few threads where "Islamic terrorism" has gone by without comment, and that's not right. I will try to keep an eye out and respond to complaints that come in that are specifically about generalizations of Muslims as terrorists.
In fact, the only reason I saw the "Jewish terrorism" thread is because I got a complaint about it. With over a hundred threads most days, it's very easy to miss individual posts within larger threads.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged
If terrorists say "We are doing this for the glory of Allah" or some similar, how can you not refer to that as Islamic?
What other term should we give it in order to stay on the proper side of the line? "Mystery Terrorism"? "Totally Secular Terrorism"? "I**amic Terrorism"?
When American nutbar fundies claim that they are doing something in the name of Christ, do you then abstract from their ravings that those are Christian ravings?
Oh - silly me. Of course. I forgot. You do that too.
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Yeah, I guess you're right. So we have that "Christian" Conservative Warmonger Stephen Harper asking God to bless Canada while addressing the troops? Or Protestant Imperialist Anti-Abortionist Creationist George Bush? Or the Christian Crusader U.S. Army?
I don't think that some asshole invoking the name of Allah or the God of Harper and Bush is reason enough to tar the religion or its adherents with such a dirty brush.
Likewise (if you want a parallel), some criminals who kidnap and murder politicians and plant bombs in mailboxes should not be referred to as Québécois Terrorists, no matter how often they claim to be acting in the name of the people of Québec.
You can fill in the rest of the analogies here.
[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]
Of course not. They're Perfectly Secular Ravings. Just because someone says they're doing something "for Jesus" is no reason to assume they're Christian. How presumptuous! How racist!
Good. But for me it is not about the riots. It is about the hypocrisy and double-standards. A guy was just fined in this country for "hate speech". Meanwhile the Western Standard runs a cartoon that is extremely offensive but isn't considered hateful.
But what is hate speech? "Willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group." So what? Why is that illegal? (And isn't promoting Islam as terrorism willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group? I guess not.)
It is illegal because it is "offensive".
But will the Western Standard in defence of free speech re-publish the contents of the offending web site? If not, why not? They can't say because it is "offensive" can they?
My objection to the issue is that is acceptable to promote the hatred of people who happen to be Islamic while couching it as an attack on fundamentalist Islam as though any distinctions are made in the cartoon.
Exactly right -- some terrorist swears in the name of Karl Marx, that doesn't make her a "Marxist terrorist", except in the yellow journals of U.S. imperialism. And the U.S. invades Iraq in the name of "democracy", that doesn't make them Democratic Invaders.
You are indeed getting the point.
If and when Jesus acknowledges that some terrorist is acting on his behalf, then "Christian terrorist" would seem appropriate.
Exactly right -- some terrorist swears in the name of Karl Marx, that doesn't make her a "Marxist terrorist", except in the yellow journals of U.S. imperialism.
And anywhere else common sense is spoken.
When did people lose their right to self-identify? If I do something in the name of Matt Groening, who are you to say I'm not?
Or is this like the whole "it's not the cartoons" thing, where we simply don't trust someone from a Muslim background to be able to tell us what they're thinking?
Originally posted by unionist:
Oh, unionist: not on babble, and certainly not in the posts of Mr Magoo.
He does think we're all nutbars - maybe not terrorists, but pretty loopy, y'know? So do a lot of other people around here. Christians for sure don't get a pass on babble.
Och, sometimes they make it so easy, y'know?
"When did people lose their right to self-identify?"
On the one hand, never. On the other, when some people self-identify, we decide that they are nuts, or evil, or some variation on those themes.
When the Italian fascists or the German National Socialists decide that they are the legitimate heirs to a whole grab-bag of cultural traditions from Indo-European, Roman, and Nordic history and pre-history, do we take them seriously?
Do we decide that all of Indian, Celtic, Roman, and Nordic cultures were really incipiently fascist?
Speaking for myself, I would say no. No, I don't. I recognize rooting through bastardized cultural traditions as something that deracinated people often do when they are desperate, or when they are just evil opportunists.
YMMV.
I keep "hammering this point" because it is obvious you don't get it.
The only way the "results of the instigation" matters is to the people who "performed the results".
If I say the sky is blue and you riot because you think that the sky is green and have some kind of genetic of mental issue that causes you to riot whenever someone tells you otherwise, then your rioting (the results) is your responsibility ... if I know that you have this weakness where you riot at the mention of a blue sky, and I intentionally want you to riot to cause riot type damage for my own stupid purpose, and then I go up to you and purposely tell you the sky is blue with the full intent that you will riot and cause my hope for damage, then the responsibility for purposely instigating a riot is mine.
It doesn't matter that the results were an "unreasonable" reaction to a few "harmless" drawings ... what matters in the case of the reaction (those who were instigated) is whether they committed the act of violence ... what matters in the case of the instigator is the intent of the instigation (was it done with the intent to cause violence and hatred?)
Two different people(s), two different crimes ... get it? Let's try to keep it straight with party we are talking about shall we?
if I know that you have this weakness where you riot at the mention of a blue sky, and I intentionally want you to riot to cause riot type damage for my own stupid purpose, and then I go up to you and purposely tell you the sky is blue with the full intent that you will riot and cause my hope for damage, then the responsibility for purposely instigating a riot is mine.
Fair enough then. Let it immediately be known that any further use of babble by any babble member EXCEPT ME shall result in the death of one of my co-workers.
Please do not antagonize me on this one. I've warned you, and you know, and you don't want to be party to murder by replying... or for that matter, using babble ever again.
See your lovely world? See how all I have to do is be irrational and suddenly you're dragged into it?
You don't share in this. You should be free to post here at babble, whether it sends me off into homicidal bloodletting or not, simply because you're being reasonable, whereas killing people because you post a reply is not. Doesn't matter if you know ahead of time. What matters is that murdering people over a reply at babble is not reasonable. Nor over a cartoon.
What matters is that murdering people over a reply at babble is not reasonable. Nor over a cartoon.
I think that is perfectly sane. What about oil?
That is the other major inconsistency and double-standard I find compelling. Some people get all in a lather over some muslims protesting over a cartoon but can then intellectualize and rationalize the killing of tens of thousands over oil.
Why is western violence and mass murder somehow more acceptable than cartoon rioting?
If the US only rioted and burned a few embassies about 100,000 Iraqis would still be alive.
There's not a lot of support around these parts for the occupation of Iraq. To be fair, there is some limited support for the idea of killing over tangible things in various forms, but that doesn't extend to intangibles and doesn't really apply here.
Of course it applies here. The Western Standard supported the invasion of Iraq. It underlines the vast disconnect between what we in the West see as unacceptable violence, Islamic protestors angry over a cartoon, and acceptable violence, the invasion of a nation on a pretext.
While we are here still debating the cartoons, we are gearing up to attack another nation on another pretext. And the vast majority of the victims in both cases are Islamic. But God forbid they get irate over their portrayal as terrorists even when their portrayal as terrorists is part of the pretext for invading and killing them.
Let me ask a question. What if you could be justifiably murdered by anyone if you were identified as a Yodeller. And then I declared your entire family to be Yodellers. Do you think you might be violently angry?
What if the people already killing my family have already thought we were yodellers for years now?
I'd say the big problem there would be the people killing my family, not you and your declaration.
Also, would you be claiming my family are yodellers directly and unambiguously, or would you draw a picture of one of our ancestors in Lederhosen and we'll just assume that means that we're all yodellers in the present day and age?
And finally, what if some of my family are, indeed, yodellers? Are you to pretend that none of us is, in order to not be accused of "smearing us all"? Are you allowed to talk about them in any way? If so, how will you ensure that none of my family misinterprets that as a smear on every one of us?
What difference does that make? The message is the same. Your family are Yodellers and killing you is acceptable.
Cartoons were used for expressly that purpose in the '30s only then it was acceptable to hate Jews. They were used for expressly that purpose for much of the early to mid-part of the last century in the USA when it was acceptable to hate and lynch African-Americans.
Now, today, it is acceptable to hate Islam. So offensive cartoons that portray them all as terrorists become the one great clarion call for free speech. Funny that people who deny the holocuast and hate Jews also cite freedom of speech in defence of their cartoons and tracts of open hate and contempt.
And more than that we know that if we can successfully label a group as terrorists their lives become worthless without any further need for real evidence. And all of Islam is associated with terrorism. How perfect.
Meanwhile, our very real and organized violence with very real deaths is shrugged off as global politics in the name of fighting terrorism which equates with Islam.
If this were a serious statement, then I would have to inform the police or some such authority to report that some insane person is making a threat against their neighbour ... being a responsible person I would probably refrain from posting on babble so as not to cause a needless death.
Now, if I deemed this a serious statement AND had a real dislike for your neighbour, I could take advantage of your unreasonableness to have you commit murder by proxy.
As for being dragged into something by irrational people ... wouldn't be the first time. Just because the other person is irrational doesn't give me a pass to be irresponsible.
Of course, people can use their own judgement in this case, but I suggest that if there were such a real case as you are making, that some of us would take the person serious, some would assume that this was a sick joke and act accordingly ... if the people who took it seriously decided to not post, and the people that didn't take it seriously decided to post, and someone got killed, then I doubt if anyone would be help responsible for your irrational actions ... but if one of us took you seriously, but decided anyway to have your neighbour killed just to prove a point of "free speech", then maybe that person might be required to face some form of official judgement ... "your rights end where my nose starts" doesn't come with a qualifier that my nose has to be damaged directly by you.
I, the wacko lefty pinko commie, shouldn't have to be reminding you, of all regular babblers, of the responsibilities that come with having rights.
Let's try a real world example then.
Various kooks, mostly fundamentalist Christian, have made it known that so long as society allows women to terminate pregnancies, they're happy to murder doctors suspected of performing this operation.
Is it irresponsible of us to continue antagonizing them thusly? Are we partly responsible for the murders of doctors, and should we therefore make abortion illegal in the hope of preventing further murders?
Remember, neither your opinion of abortion nor mine is relevant to this. The points that need considering are:
1. They're murdering doctors
2. It's because we allow abortions (mostly)
3. We could choose to stop allowing abortion
So... should we? They've made their position clear. Should we prevent the murder of doctors by ceasing to provoke these kooks?
And he never will. Maybe he doesn't even want to, and since he ignores even the evidence and testimony that he asks for, there isn't much point in bothering trying to talk to him about the issue.
Let him stick to his view that what's going on is along the same plane as Betty trying to kill Veronica for flirting with Archie in the Chocklit Shoppe.
Let him stick to that view and leave him there.
I think you're right AQB ... it's pretty obvious that he's just pulling my chain, as no one could possibly believe that anyone is going to have an abortion simply so they could provoke some fanatical Christians into killing doctors, or if it were the case that there existed such a person that would kill their own unborn child for the sole purpose of getting a lunatic to kill a doctor, then that person should be considered one of the worst hate mongering pieces of shit the world has ever produced and should indeed be held responsible for their action ... but I assume he knows that.
The abortion kooks?
Once your're through playing God, there is enough room for others to play.
If we are to survive death, we must first survive birth.
But We don't have to survive at all.
From: Haven Hotel | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged
as no one could possibly believe that anyone is going to have an abortion simply so they could provoke some fanatical Christians into killing doctors
But until we manage to perfect the "Magic ESP Machine" their motivation is not available to me, and more importantly, it's not the point.
The point is, we could prevent the murder of doctors by either rolling back the law on abortion, or by collectively choosing not to terminate pregnancies.
This would surely make these kooks stop feeling provoked by what they see as the murder of babies, right?
So it's really a simply question. Should we, or shouldn't we? Or are you going to pretend you can read minds and say it's "all about intent"?
I don't recall proposing that offensive cartoons should banned ... my "proposal" was that those who choose to publish offensive cartoons for the purpose of inciting violence and hate be subject to penalty of law.
Just because it's not as easy as pointing a "radar gun" at a person and determining their intent, doesn't make it any less workable than say determining murder from man-slaughter. The need to make a judgement on intent is not some foreign concept in the field of law.
I though you wanted to try "a world example"? Now "the world" is not good enough for you?
No, I'm just afraid to argue with a guy who has ESP. But you knew I was going to say that, didn't you? And that. Crikey.
My problem with your proposal is that clearly someone like Ezra is going to be assumed to be posting offensive material solely to promote violence, whereas, say, anarchist groups who actively urge their members to "act up" will be assumed to be doing this for the good of all, or for a "legitimate political purpose".
In other words, I simply don't trust you, or anyone else, to decide that a publisher is or is not publishing something "for the right reasons".
If a publisher truly is inciting violence, our Hate Crime laws deal with that just fine. And outside of those laws, there's no such thing as "a good enough reason" to publish something offensive. Free speech doesn't need anyone's blessing.
And I stand by my assertion that the change that needs to be made needs to be made at the end where the violence actually happens. People need to learn a little self control, at least with regard to violence. That shouldn't be replaced with us second guessing publishers as to whether they had a good enough reason to want to publish something.
S1m0n
My problem with your proposal is that clearly someone like Ezra is going to be assumed to be posting offensive material solely to promote violence.
Levant was posting the material in order to promote hate, not violence.
However, under canadian law, the first is assumed to lead to the second.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged
So then under the same Canadian law you're mentioning, he can be charged with a hate crime then.
Uh, unless you're just making it up. Are you just making it up?
Anyway, this is EXACTLY what I mean.
"Ezra's lying! He's doing to hate people! He's evil!"
Anyway, feel free and have him charged. I'll be watching the newspapers for evidence of your success.
Critical Mass2
Exactly right. And since there is no legal evidence that any of the publishers of the cartoons in Canada, in Europe or in the Middle East (some cartoons were republished in Jordan and Yemen where the offending journalists now face the death penalty) did so for that purpose, one has to defend their right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press and side with all those who oppose the violent reactionaries who rioted.
In another post, I explained at some legnth what the Canadian and European jurisprudence is on the issue of "blasphemy" (or attacks against religion or a specific religion) when it comes to freedom of the press and all the legal and constitutional commentators familiar with that jurisprudence have been repeating over the last few months that none of the cartoons can be seen as constituting "hate speech" under any Canadian or European national laws. S it is not surprising that there have been no charges or prosecutions: the reality is that attacks, even scurrilous ones, against religious sentiments are perfectly acceptable under law (whether they are acceptable from the point of view of politeness and getting along with one's neighbours is another, non-legal, matter)
So we are stuck with defending the right of the Western Standard (from the right) or Libération (from the centre-left) or Charlie Hedbo (from the iconoclastic anti-clerical Left) or Die Welt (from the centre) or Die Tageszeitung (from the left) to publish, reproduce, comment on the cartoons.
It is called being consistent: consistently in favour of the right to comment on, attack, and ridicule (or defend) religious beliefs, consistenly in solidarity with journalists who are under vicious attack and occasional physical threat from extreme right wing forces, consistently against the forces of religious fundamentalism, whether it take the form of attacking the right to publish cartoons, the right to exhibit the Piss Christ, the right to shoot The Last Temptation of Christ, or the right to publish gay pornography.
And yes, the only people responsible for the violence of rioting are the rioters. Otherwise, we are simply making excuses for rightwing fundamentalists, who are opposed by Moslem liberals and progressives (who I thought we were supposed to be supporting against their rightwing nutjob enemies)
From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005 | IP: Logged
Nearly a month ago, the University of Saskatchewan student paper, the Sheaf, declined to run the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that so many Muslims insist blaspheme Islam. Editor-in-chief Will Robbins told readers that while the drawings were an important news story, he saw no reason to print them, as they were so likely to give offence.
Two weeks later, though, the Sheaf ran a cartoon depicting Jesus fellating a pig -- a "capitalist piglet," to be precise.....
.....Where, one might ask, are the Christian riots? The angry protesters chanting, "Behead those who insult Christianity"? The attacks on roadside Saskatchewan tourism kiosks and provincial campground fee booths? The burning of Saskatchewan-based fast-food restaurants overseasweb page
Strange story.Mr. Robbins gave an unconvincing appology about the cartoon being published in error but the cartoon stayed up on the website for 4 days after the controversy came to light.Mr. Robbins eventually resigned.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged
.....Where, one might ask, are the Christian riots? The angry protesters chanting, "Behead those who insult Christianity"?
The Christian forces had no need; they have REAL power, and were able to force the editor in question to resign in disgrace.
Only the powerless riot in the streets. If you're powerful or part of the dominant group in society, you can get what you want unsing far more direct means.
If you're powerful or part of the dominant group in society, you can get what you want unsing far more direct means.
So you're saying that Syrians are a persecuted minority in Syria???
I don't think they should be banned. I don't think they should even be prosecuted. But those who published them such as the publisher of the Western Standard, should be held with the same contempt and disgust as racists, holocaust deniers, and the rest of the scum usually found under rocks.
But these so-called defenders of free speech were lauded and hailed by the media and supporters. And no one even spots the hypocrisy when a holocaust denier is tried in Germany for expressing an idea that is "offensive".
More attacks by religious groups on the media:
South Park controversy
Satirical show is attacked by Catholics and famous Scientologist.
But those who published them such as the publisher of the Western Standard, should be held with the same contempt and disgust as racists, holocaust deniers, and the rest of the scum usually found under rocks.
You mean like the French leftwing daily Libération, or the French anti-clerical leftist satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, or the German leftwing newspaper Die Tageszeitung?
You are getting carried away with your rhetoric there.
I think the fact the Western Standard reprinted the cartoons is comforting to many. Since the WS is conservative, they can go back to their stereotypical reactions and not have to think.
The fact that the cartons have been reprinted by extremely well-known and wide circulation leftwing, anti-racist AND anti-clerical/anti-religious publications does not square with the knne-jerk denunciations. They show that the story is much more complicated. But it is easier to shout: Western Standard, Western Standard! To be for printing the cartoons must mean being rigthwing, racist, and this that and the other evil thing.
As opposed to it meaning that journalists have a right to attack religion, or not attack it.
There used to be a very solid anti-clerical, unbeliever, secular rationalist, anti-religion tradition among progressives. Some people still cherish that tradition.
You are, of course, free to regard them this way, but how do you plan to get everyone else to?
Please tell me that won't be revealed in "Western Standard XIII".
Curious question for you though: will you be holding rabble in the same "scum" regard for our Mike Constable/Nazi Pope cartoon? Or is this, as CM2 suggests, just a knee-jerk reaction, reserved solely for Ezra and co.?
Yes. Just like them. Racist cartoons do not become acceptable because they are re-published by misguided left wing publications anymore than holocaust denial by a leading left magazine would make that okay.
I am not religious. But there is a huge difference between rational discourse objecting to religious beliefs and doctrine and ridicule. Further, the most offensive cartoon was not attacking the worst excesses of Islam but was stereotyping all muslims as terrorists.
And today we kill people we label as terrorists without any requirement for a arrest or trial and without any regard for thier freedom of speech or to draw an offensive cartoon.
Clearly from the confines of your cozy, insulated basement you see the world only from your own, droopy eyes. In what way did the Nazi Pope cartoon stereotype and label all catholics as Nazis, or terrorists?
1) law, in this case, European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, makes no difference between "rational" talk and ridicule. Ridicule of religion is a form of protected speech, and a valuable form of protected speech as such: see for example Monty Python's Life of Brian which was the object of many loud campaigns by Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians. The law makes no distinction between academic discussion in some cozy Cambridge seminar no one has ever heard of and the rough and tumble of outrageous editorial cartooning. How could it? In fact, law commissions in Europe, specifically in the UK back in the 1960s and then in the 1970s, looked at blasphemy laws and concluded that it was impossible to make a valid distinction between "rational" critiques of religious doctrines and let's say less polite or even what some would call more incendiary forms of attack on religion. It was impossible to define a "proper" or "polite" "manner" (as opposed to "matter"). A determination by a given judge that a particular speech or writing about religion was done in a balsphemous or hateful "manner" would basically come down to the personal prejudice of that judge. Change judges, and you would get a different opinion. There was simply no possible way, when it came to religious comment, to determine what was OK and what was not. Legal scholars thus tend to recommend scrapping all laws defending religion.
2) as for the worst cartoon, for one thing it was one out of 10 or 12, many of the others being tame or even mocking of the very newspaper that commissioned them, thus diminishing the argument that the intent was to be hurtful (if that is the case, why not just throw out all the neutral or cartoons critical of the originating Danish newspaper and only keep the one about the bombs in the turban?). Second of all, while unpopular, wrong, even ignorant or stupid, there is nothing illegal believing that there exist elements in a monotheistic (therefore authoritarian) religion that can, or do, lead to violence. It is a legitimate argment one can agree, or disagree, with. The same argument, more or less, has been applied over the past 200-300 years by various critics, polite and impolite, respectful and scurrilous and incendiary, of all forms of Christianity, of Judaism and of Islam. You must have heard of Thomas Paine, of Montaigne, of Voltaire, of Cobbett, of J.S. Mill?
[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]
In exactly the same way that a picture of an Arab guy with a bomb in his turban branded all Muslims, now and forever, as terrorists.
thus diminishing the argument that the intent was to be hurtful
That is a rather spurious argument. Clearly more than one was intended to be hurtful and offensive and the newspaper saw fit to print them.
Look, I am open to be convinced. Maybe it is just a matter of free speech. So why doesn't the Western Standard and the newspapers you mentioned print the words of Ernst Zundel in solidarity with free speech? That would be a real statement as there might be actual, real consequences for publishing them as opposed to a racist cartoon attacking a people for whom it is now fashionable to attack.
Would you support the Western Standard if it promoted free speech by printing Zundel's views?
Makwa
From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005 | IP: Logged
Oh, so witty, so amusing, so bright, so brilliant, so campy, so crazy, so diverting, so droll, so entertaining, so epigrammatic, so facetious, so fanciful, so funny. You must be such the hit at all the parties.
Originally posted by Makwa:
Good for you. One who isn't a complete hypocrite. Why don't you test that here.
**edited to add: the Western Standard, however, I think you will find is completely hypocritical.
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Are you calling Makwa a right-winger?
[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003 | IP: Logged
So why doesn't the Western Standard and the newspapers you mentioned print the words of Ernst Zundel in solidarity with free speech?
I've seen many of these calls for the Standard to print this or that to somehow "prove" that they value free speech.
Why, exactly, are they on the hook for this? Free speech implies that they can print what they want (within the bounds of the law) or NOT print what they DON'T want. How can they be at the beck and call of anyone who distrusts them, to "prove" their good intentions by posting anything and everything offensive?
My guess is that they chose to print these particular cartoons because there was a huge, violent reaction to them that included straightfaced demands that printing offensive pictures be made illegal. Apparently, the UN actually gave this idea the time of day. If all they wanted to do was anger some Muslims, they could have done that any time they wanted, in all kinds of different ways, and they didn't.
I'll save you a dance.
I don't buy the idea that if you draw Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, "THEREFORE", you're implying that all Muslims are terrorists.
I've seen a very famous painting of Jesus holding a revolver. Doesn't mean I think that all Christians are gun nuts. I think you're reading into that particular image what you want to read into that particular image. In that respect, I don't anticipate changing your mind. If you think it's a hate crime, well, I can't stop you from thinking that, and if you think it somehow accuses 1.2 billion Muslims of all being terrorists, I can't help you there either.
But honestly... you're going to try and tell us that a bomb in a turban is an unambiguous accusation about all Muslims, but the Pope giving the Nazi salute to Mary is really all about the Pope, and how he was a Nazi, and is not intended to imply anything about the Catholic Church? I find that hard to swallow. When was Mary in the Nazi Youth??
Sauce for the goose = sauce for the gander on that one.
Did I?
It sure sounded like you did.
Vansterdam Kid
I think it's pretty obvious why he said that, sometimes its good to know what people think of you. They may as well just say they hate you to your face, instead of skirting around the subject.
Re - Free Speech, Makwa and Frustrated Mess.
[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004 | IP: Logged
A repy that is not a one liner, how amusing. Good for you, I dare say.
Here is the thing: the Pope was a member of the Nazi youth. The cartoon depicted the pope. Catholics did not perceive an attack on their entire faith. Catholics are not depicted as terrorists. They have no fear of bombs being dropped on Poland or Ireland becuase, having been denoted as terrorists, their lives are worthless.
The cartoon in question did denote the prophet Mohammed, who does represent all of Islam -- as most of the blogs and Daniel Pipes and Pat Robertson all grasp -- as a mad, terrorist. So far, Arab, Islamic countries are occupied by Israel and the United States and allies with deaths and injuries in the tens of thousands. How many western nations does Islam occupy? Yet Islam is portrayed as extremist and dangerous and rife with terrorists. British and Americans who kill civilians in the process of stealing oil, however, are not terrorists.
Here is something else to chew on. The editor who chose to originally print those cartoons chose not to print a cartoon of Jesus because it was "offensive" and would cause a "debate". He chose not to print a cartoon of Sharon eating Palestinian children because he said it was "anti-semitic". But he chose to print caroons that were offensive to Islam and and considered racist.
It is clear that the editor engages in self-censorship all the time due to public and external pressures. So the argument it was about free speech is really on very thin ice. So why, then, publish the cartoons? The only good answer is to demonize a minority in his country and to demonize a people under attack in their own countries.
There was nothing brave about it. Just more cowardly racism. And white supremacists and Jew baiters defend what they say as freedom of speech all the time.
Just because you can say it, doesn't mean you do. Or people should stop teaching their children not to say "fuck" and we should accept all racist speech is now acceptable including holocaust denial and the crap for which the London guy was just fined. Where is his freedom of speech? London guy's problem was in attacking black and Jews. He would be probably on talk shows and being feted if he had only stuck to Islam.
Really? How so?
Catholics are not depicted as terrorists. They have no fear of bombs being dropped on Poland or Ireland becuase, having been denoted as terrorists, their lives are worthless.
Well, no Catholics probably don't fear bombs being dropped on Irealnd, but that's mostly because the Orange militia doesn't have an air force.
And I'll bet Ian Pasiley would've enjoyed the Constable cartoon.
And anyway, George Bush's rhetoric going into the Iraq war was more pro-democracy than it was anti-Muslim. So if we're going to prosecute people for saying things that could be used to justify war...
I'm scared to read this thread. So I'm closing it for length without reading it.
All times are Pacific Time
Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: first stop -------------------- introductions and frequently asked questions Category: rabble content -------------------- rabble news features babble book lounge rabble reactions news by the rest of us ms communicate Category: current events -------------------- national news canadian politics international news and politics the media Category: walking the talk -------------------- babblers helping babblers activism anti-racism news and initiatives feminism aboriginal issues and culture labour and consumption environmental justice youth issues Category: right brain babble -------------------- culture body and soul humanities & science rabble writers' circle out and about babble banter Category: from far and wide -------------------- nunavut, nwt, yukon bc, alberta, saskatchewan manitoba, ontario, quebec nfld, labrador, pei, ns, nb Category: archived babble -------------------- rabble podcast network auntie.com the best of babble election 2006 international peace movement the NDP rabble columns in cahoots USA the middle east and central asia


text:
In Tech
12 Facts About Google Stadia Whereby You Can Play Video Games On Any Devices
Google Stadia is a game streaming platform that enables you to play games online without the need to download or updating them. Streaming a game is the same as streaming videos on Netflix or music on Spotify.
Google Stadia is not a gaming console or a portable gaming device. It is a cloud gaming service that you can use by subscribing to the same and using a high-speed internet connection. You need a screen like TV, a notebook, or your smartphone to enjoy seamless gaming.
All these things may sound too good to be true. But Google has the approach and resources to make this vision real for its users. Here are some facts about Google Stadia that you need to know.
1. Google Stadia runs on any screen
2. Social Sharing
3. Stream on YouTube Gaming
4. Stadia Controller
5. Split Screen Feature
6. Chromecast Ultra
7. Integration with YouTube
8. Users don't own the games
9. What Stadia offer for a subscription fee?
10. Stadia Base
11. Drawback of Stadia
12. Google's Exclusive Service
If you have a screen capable of playing movies and videos, you can run games on it using Stadia. Of course, you need a high-speed internet connection, but you can run it on any screen like a laptop, desktop, smartphone, or tablet PC. Google Stadia enable you to run high-end games on any screen capable of playing videos. Users can also switch the devices while playing a game on Stadia. For example, if you are playing a game on your TV and want to switch to your smartphone, you can easily do resume the game on your phone.
Cloud computing is not merely for delivering and sharing powerful content, but it offers some innovative social features on Google Stadia. The State Share feature on Google Stadia allows you to capture a moment while playing a game and share it through a link to your friends or anyone else. Your friends can pick up the game right from that moment and start playing it themselves.
A Google Assistant button can help you when you are stuck somewhere in a game. Imagine yourself being trapped in a rut, and the Google Assistant button will help you access pathways and guide you with a one-touch key.
Also, there is a capture button that enables you to save and stream your game live on YouTube gaming. YouTube gaming is already on the rise due to the increase in gaming channels on the website, and this will add more live streamers to YouTube.
Although Google Stadia is a cloud gaming service, it also offers a controller known as the Google Stadia controller. It looks similar to the Sony DualShock 4 and comes with dual analog sticks. The controller offers some bonus features that make it much convenient to use. It connects to the cloud server through your Wi-Fi quickly to minimize any input lags. The capture button allows you to stream the game to YouTube, and the Google Assistant button can trigger the mic features.
Users can also use their keyboard and another gamepad, but the Stadia controller offers enough features to eliminate the need for such accessories. You can enjoy high-resolution gaming by connecting the Stadia controller to a 4k TV using an HDMI 4k Cable. Google Stadia is an all in one device that you can use to enjoy seamless gaming anytime.
Google Stadia comes with a split-screen feature. Users can stream multiple windows to one screen, enabling them to play games together with their friends. It's like a multiplayer over the internet. You need a fast internet connection to use the split-screen feature, but the idea is really cool for online gaming freaks.
If you want to play the games on a TV, you will need Chromecast Ultra due to the nature of the Stadia controller and service operation. Chromecast Ultra helps you to pair the Controller to a TV and use the service for playing games.
Stadia works with YouTube in a way that allows users to use features like Crowd Play, enabling them to join the YouTuber they see in the same game. It is a kind of state sharing and a distinct feature of Google Stadia. This feature shares a playable moment from a game rather than video clip sharing that allows viewers to watch the same game.
You can see this as the difference between sharing a Microsoft Word document or a Google Document; the MS word is a static item, while Google Doc enables multiple people to work in real-time on the same file or document.
The only iffy point so far seems to be a wide variety of available games, but Google promises to offer its users a gaming experience that is almost mythical.
Here's a small drawback: you cannot own the games you enjoy playing on Google Stadia. You feel different when you purchase a game in the form of a physical disk or download it to your computer. Sometimes, you have to play with the game files, like adding in your own bugfixes and mods that are not possible with Google Stadia.
At the time of launch, Google will offer two service tiers for a monthly subscription of US$9.90. It will be the solo offer available with the Stadia Edition bundle. Google offers HDR gaming up top 4K/60fps with 5.1 channel surround sound for a home theater experience. Moreover, you can enjoy free games until the stadia pro subscription is active.
According to available information, users will also get discounts on purchases. Stadia Pro offers you access to full Destiny 2 for a limited period. The offer will include the base game, past add ons, and the new expansion along with the annual pass.
There is another service known as Stadia Base that is expected to launch in 2020. Although the price is not known, it offers a host of features like high resolution gaming up to 1080p/60fps with digital stereo sound. With the Stadia base, users might be able to buy and keep the games they want. They can play the games in a chrome browser or on Pixel 3/Pixel 3a smartphones.
With anticipation for a wonderful gaming experience, there is a drawback of Google Stadia. The gaming experience depends on the reliability of your internet connection. Users know the pain they go through when their YouTube videos take longer than expected to load. Users with a slow internet connection are not likely to enjoy the best gaming experience as per the expectations from Stadia.
Moreover, Stadia cannot beat the best gaming PCs that offer higher resolutions with heavy-duty processors and graphic cards specially designed for gaming. Moreover, monitors and gaming mice are optimized for high-end gaming responsiveness.
Google has tied up with many gaming providers to release a plethora of games on Stadia. Google has also set up an in-house shop to offer its exclusive games, just like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Therefore, users will be unlikely to find the games available on Stadia on other gaming platforms.
These are some facts about Google Stadia that game lovers need to know. Users can enjoy an exhilarating gaming experience on Google Stadia without the need for special hardware. However, users can buy the stadia controller to enjoy the soft keys and parallel analog sticks.
Author Bio: Emily Bartels is a content writer at Cable Chick. She enjoys writing on various topics mainly associated with Technology, Gadget and Software. Her famous articles are on the topic of Technology, Gadgets and many more.
Facts About Google Stadiagoogle stadiaGuest post
7 New Innovation Technology That Startups Need In 2020
5 Ways to Do a SWOT Analysis for Your Small Business
Tooth Decay: How To Assess Your Risk (Causes, Symptoms and Treatment)
Learn: How Dental Veneers Can Improve Your Smile Completely?
8 Technological Trends That Make Our Lives Easier
The Evolution of Technology – How It's Changing Business
What Is Bad Breath and What Causes Bad Breath?
What To Expect As An Expat Living In New Zealand
Awesome things here. I am very satisfied to peer your post.
Thank you so much and I'm taking a look ahead to contact
you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?
Suntrics
Sure you can contact me here: [email protected]
9 Things Lying Around…
9 Things Lying Around Your House That You Could Sell for A Quick Profit
5 Things A Caregiver Should…
5 Things A Caregiver Should Never Do

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


German diet will help you to lose 15 pounds fast and easy. This diet was developed by German nutrition experts for overweight women to solve their health problems fast and safe. Using this German diet you will be able to lose 15 pounds in 13 days.
This diet is very simple but it won't totally remove feeling of hunger, you will still feel easy feeling of hunger. If you agree to suffer from time to time from hunger to reach your goals, this diet is for you. On the other hand you will feel energy awakening in yourself, use it for physical activity or to do some physical exercises.
Breakfast: 1 cup of black coffee or tea without sugar and 1 small toast made of black bread.
Lunch: 2 boiled eggs, 80 g of spinach mixed with 1 teaspoon of vegetable oil and 1 tomato.
Dinner: 100 g of boiled chicken breast without skin, 150 g of vegetable salad made of tomatoes and green onions mixed with 1 teaspoon of vegetable oil.
Breakfast: a cup of black coffee or tea without sugar and 1 small toast made of black bread.
Lunch: 200 g of salad made of tomatoes and white cabbage mixed with 1 teaspoon of vegetable oil, 1 orange or 2 mandarins, 1 big apple or a few plums.
Dinner: 2 boiled eggs, 200 g of boiled chicken meat without skin, 80 g of green salad.
Lunch: 1 boiled egg, 200 g of boiled carrots mixed with one teaspoon of vegetable oil, 100 g of low-fat cheese.
Dinner: 250 g of salad made of apple, mandarin, banana, pear or any other fruit.
Lunch: 250 g of fried (fry without oil) or boiled fish, 1 tomato, 1 apple.
Dinner: 150 g of vegetable salad made of any vegetables and mixed with 1 teaspoon of vegetable oil or lemon juice.
Lunch: 200 g of roast chicken (without oil), 100 g of vegetable salad made of any vegetables.
Dinner: 2 boiled eggs, 100 g of carrot salad made of boiled carrots mixed with lemon juice.
Breakfast: a cup of tea without sugar and 1 small toast made of black bread.
Lunch: 200 g of fried (without oil) beef, 150 g of salad made of white cabbage mixed with lemon juice.
Dinner: 100 g of carrots mixed with 1 teaspoon of vegetable oil, 150 g of low-fat cheese.
Breakfast: a cup tea without sugar and 1 small toast made of black bread.
Lunch: 200 g of boiled chicken without skin.
For other 6 days repeat the diet plan beginning from day 2.
It is necessary to follow German diet as it is without changing sequence of dishes or menu. It is recommended to consume a big glass of water before each meal.
If you think that you will be able to follow this diet plan and it is very easy for you, try another German diet which will help you to lose pounds amazingly fast but it is still recommended to try 1 German diet plan which is above.
Every day it is necessary to eat 4-5 apples, 1 orange, 80 g of low-fat chicken, 2 small toasts made of black bread or 2 small slices of black bread. Duration of this diet is 2 weeks.


The #1 Best Value of 20 places to stay in Beverly Hills. Free Wifi. Room service. Special offer. Hotel website. Luxe Rodeo Drive Hotel. Show Prices. #2 Best Value of 20 places to stay in Beverly Hills. Pool. Restaurant. Special offer. Hotel website. The Beverly Hilton. Show Prices. 18,169 reviews. #3 Best Value of 20 places to stay in Beverly Hills.
Search for hotels in Beverly Hills with Hotels.com by checking our online map. Our map displays the areas and neighborhoods around all Beverly Hills hotels so you can see how close you are from landmarks and attractions, and then refine your search within the larger area. The best Beverly Hills hotel deals are here with our lowest price guarantee.
The Beverly Hills Hotel, also called The Beverly Hills Hotel and Bungalows, is located on Sunset Boulevard in Beverly Hills, California. One of the world's best-known hotels,   it is closely associated with Hollywood film stars, rock stars and celebrities.
A four star Beverly Hlls, CA hotel, The Beverly Hilton is known for it's great location, elegant accommodations and year-round star-studded events.
Beverly Hills is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States, surrounded by the cities of Los Angeles and West Hollywood. Sometimes referred to as "90210," one of its primary ZIP codes, it is home to many celebrities and known for its luxury hotels and Rodeo Drive shopping district.