How long before the jihad is declared against MySpace? Or against this blog for daring to link to this blasphemous parody, "Allah Allah Allah"?

But seriously, how long before someone gets MySpace to pull this parody?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:13 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Judging of the Holocaust cartoons is underway. Here are some pictures of the judges hard at work.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 2 kb.

In reaction to the Danish cartoon controversy, an Iranian newspaper promised to put on a contest where cartoonists would compete for a prize honouring the best cartoon mocking the Holocaust.

Who knew such a contest would be so popular? They've got entries from all over Europe and North America.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 1797 words, total size 14 kb.

Muslims are being told that Canada's Parliament sets the law, and as far as the Canadian government is concerned, the Prophet has as much protection as he deserves.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:12 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 5 kb.

From the Wikipedia entry for fever:

An adaptive mechanism, fever is the body's reaction to pathogens; it attempts to raise core body temperature to levels that will speed up the actions of the immune system, and may also directly denature, debilitate, or kill the pathogen. Most fevers are caused by infections, and almost all infectious diseases can cause fever. When a patient has or is suspected of having a fever, that person's body temperature is measured using a thermometer. If successful in ridding the body of an invasive pathogen, fever is an important protective immune mechanism and should generally not be suppressed.

Sometimes, for various reasons, mild fevers are intentionally induced. Naturopath Paavo Airola claimed that, because cancer cells are known to die at lower temperatures than normal body cells, they can sometimes be fought with fevers.

That last point is contentious -- the evidence certainly does not support inducing fever as an effective means of treating cancer in the human body.

But there are many kinds of cancer:

Thousands chanted slogans and burned Danish flags in Pakistan and Iraq to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad on Tuesday.

Witness accounts, meanwhile, confirmed a report by Italy's envoy, who said the violence that killed 11 people in Benghazi, Libya, last week was the work of both Islamic radicals and anti-government forces.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Muslim anger over the cartoons was being exploited by radical Islamists and other interests.

"I think it is evident for everyone that this crisis is no longer about the 12 drawings in Jyllands-Posten," Fogh Rasmussen said. "It's about everything else and different agendas in the Muslim world. It's obvious that extremist circles exploit the situation."

One thing is clear -- the cartoon riots are certainly flushing the radicals out into the open. You just know intelligence agencies and domestic security forces everywhere are taking special care to identify the mob leaders and the provocateurs. To file the information away for a rainy day.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 3 kb.

Though the National Post has not published the cartoons themselves, the paper has come out strongly in defence of the Western Standard, seeing the big picture:

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

We have disagreed with the Standard over the need to reprint the cartoons that first appeared last September in Copenhagen's Jyllands-Posten newspaper. But the magazine's decision was certainly defensible: Its publisher and editor argued the best way for their readers to place the images in context was actually to see them.

If the legal actions against the Standard are successful, it will send a dangerous message: that any group in society can use mechanisms of government to censor views it disagrees with. The result would be a media environment that is timid and bland. Even those who disagree with the Standard's editorial stance should support it in its campaign to uphold the principle of free speech.

The editorial board at the National Post gets it. This is about sovereignty, and about the duty of the media to defend it. We have our rights and freedoms, and they have theirs. We live by a set of standards, and the media acts as the watchdog, calling out when we fail to live by those standards, or when those standards are threatened. It can be a dangerous role to play, but that is why the media garners so much respect (or used to).

Our standards are for ourselves. People in other nations don't have to like them, but then they have their own countries in which they implement their own standards.

And maybe that's the real difference between us and the rabid crowds screaming their fury over the cartoons:

We don't demand that those living in other countries live by our standards. On the other hand, they are demanding we die by theirs.

The media needs to make that clear. Part of that is not cowering in the face of the mob about the cartoons. And for those media outlets like the National Post that have decided not to print the cartoons, they have to be unequivocal in defending those who do.

You can't pick and choose which rights you want to defend and when to defend them. The media needs to remember that. Otherwise the mob will attack when while we dither and wring our hands.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:31 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

Apparently this is the result of "careful consideration" by our university students today:

The reasoning for this?

A university newspaper in Canada is defending its publishing of a cartoon showing Jesus and Muhammad kissing, saying it's not "an act of hate."

"The decision to print the cartoon was carefully considered in an effort to advocate tolerance," Brian Clow, president of the Victoria University Students' Association said.

As Brian Clow is a member of the Young Liberals Club, I can see where he gets his ideas of "tolerance". If we don't tolerate having a same-sex agenda shoved down our throats, we're socially backwards in some way.

But hey, I don't think Brian Clow needs to have his head removed from his body because we disagree. And if certain Muslims think this Catholic is going to make common cause with them because the same people insulted both of our religions, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Maybe it's a sign of my confidence and faith that I don't flip out whenever someone insults the Church, the Pope, Jesus, or what have you. Whether it's screaming for blood or asking for a hate-crime investigation -- it infringes on Brian Clow's God-given right to be jerk. Who am I to get in his way?

The corollary is to wonder about the confidence and faith of those who do become unglued, whatever their religion. Those who cry out for death whenever they see others not following their rules are those who, deep down, know that given a real choice, no one would willingly follow their rules, at least the way they've implemented them.

Now here's the kicker.

Deeper down, these same people know that they wish they didn't have to follow these rules. And that fundamental lack of faith is what drives them mad. At least that's what I think.

If you are interested in the thoughts of the people who put out this cartoon, go read the blog. Despite what I said, these people are actually aiming for more lofty goals than merely annoying everybody:

We aim to reclaim the language of liberty from its enemies on the left and the right: those who would bind liberal societies in the poisoned chains of identity politics and moral relativism, and those who would impose the false freedom of a society in which the market is the only source of value. We believe that personal freedom must be protected by political institutions, and that an unreasonable threat to personal freedom is a threat that must be met with any sacrifice.

However, we are not survivalist troglodytes or libertarian anarchists. We believe that personal individual freedom can be maintained only by living with a sense of civic responsibility, compassion, and moral justice.

Actually, there is lot about what these people stand for that I can get behind. I think, though, that their message might be drowned out in the uproar. Purposeful controversy is a tricky thing to manage, as we've all seen.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:28 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 4 kb.

From the Globe and Mail:

In Cairo, Bishop Karsten Nissen, of Denmark's Evangelical Lutheran Church, met with Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi of al-Azhar University, the world's highest Sunni Muslim seat of learning.

Mr. Tantawi said the Danish prime minister must apologize for the drawings and further demanded the world's religious leaders meet to write a law that "condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets."

He said the United Nations should impose the law on all countries.

I have to expect that the Grand Imam is not as much of a fool as his statement suggests. The United Nations can't impose anything. Members states can incorporate UN resolutions and charters into their legal codes, but even then only if they are consistent with their constitutions. If they don't like the UN ruling, they can ignore it, or simply leave the organization. The UN doesn't have an effective enforcement body.

The only time the UN went to war was in Korea, and then only because the Soviet Union boycotted the Security Council vote over a different issue -- the exclusion of communist China from the UN. That allowed the Western bloc to use the UN to go to war with the Soviets against the North Korean invasion. That mistake has never been repeated, and the UN has essentially been in stalemate. At best, such as in Iraq in 1991, the UN simply authorized what was already going to happen with or without its support.

So what does the Grand Imam think is going to happen? The UN will never pass a binding resolution via the Security Council on the issue of cartoons. The General Assembly can try, but with all the ultra-left transnational progressive NGOs slumming at Turtle Bay, it is unlikely that a resolution in support of religious conservatives will see the light of day.

And even if such a resolution passed in the General Assembly, so what? Nothing would change.

Well, one thing would. The Islamists would have succeeded at turning the UN into an organ for promoting their agenda. Today it's cartoons, tomorrow the sale of pork, next week burkas for everyone. That might be the final straw for some Western nations to drop the UN altogether.

Maybe that would not be such a bad thing.

Who knows? If that were the outcome, the Grand Imam might get support for his silly idea from some unexpected quarters.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:45 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

From CBS News (via NealeNews):

In Islamabad, former U.S. President Bill Clinton criticized the cartoons but said Muslims wasted an opportunity to build better ties with the West by holding violent protests.

"I can tell you most people in the United States deeply respect Islam ... and most people in Europe do," he said. Mr. Clinton was visiting to sign an agreement with Pakistan's government on an HIV-AIDS project by his charitable foundation.

I beg to differ with the ex-President. Deep respect? Very, very doubtful. Before the cartoon furor, respect for Islam as a religion was tenuous, at best, with the lurking fear of Islamic-inspired terrorism undermining whatever respect, or at least tolerance, there existed.

If respect for Islam was at a low point, it was in part because the weak response by most Islamic nations to terrorism originating within their borders (and in some case, the active support of that terrorism) meant that the respect was not earned.

Muslims don't get it -- Islam doesn't get a free ride. Westerners do not respect Islam just because Muslims say we have to, no matter what. That fundamental disconnect is a major problem in establishing a dialogue.

But there is another reason respect is at a low point. For that, I blame Westerners who claim to be respectful.

In Denmark, we Westerners indulged in a time-honoured tradition of satirizing authority. This time, the target was Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

All hell breaks loose. We are not surprised.

Nor are we surprised by the death threats, the bounties, the fires.

But we are surprised by the spinelessness exhibited by most of our media, trying to hide their cowardice behind "respect". The sheer inability of the media to stand up and protect their own freedoms makes us all wonder what role they should be playing in protecting any freedoms.

Cowardice masquerading as respect.

When respect is used as an excuse to allow our freedoms to be trampled by those whose goals is to substitute those freedoms for totalitarianism, it should come as no surprise few people are bothered if they are accused of lacking respect.

If that's what it means to be respectful, count me out.

Being disrespectful becomes a badge of honour, since it separates those from the others who sully the notion of respect by equating it to capitulation.

That's too bad. There is a role for respect to play here -- those in the West for Islamic sensibilities, and for those in the Islamic world for the freedoms enjoyed in multi-religious democracies. I don't think for a minute that the solution is going to be easy -- my fear is that a true clash of civilizations is upon us, and that no cohabitation is possible in the long run.

If that's the case, respect will play a role when the West triumphs (and I'm certain it will), as it did at the end of World War II. The lack of respect at the close of World War I is pointed to as a proximate cause for the rise of fascism and Nazism. If we want to avoid that mistake again, we had better protect our capacity to truly respect something. As it is, we are devaluing the concept, and we will regret the day when "respect" is the province only of the weak and fearful.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:56 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

What if Al Gore has prevailed in the US election in 2000? Does anyone really think George W Bush would be doing anything like this?

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

Note that Al Gore attended the forum after the Saudis had disinvited the Danish delegation over the Muhammad cartoons. No matter that these Danes did not represent the paper in question. They were Danes, and that was bad enough. Did Al Gore then refuse to attend to protest this racist move? Did Al Gore refuse to attend to make a stand for free speech, a theme he plays up a lot in his criticisms of the Patriot Act?

Of course not. Instead he delivers the anti-American screed just quoted to his Saudi buddies.

The Captain weighs in:

I'm stunned almost to speechlessness. We held mass roundups of Arabs? When? Where? What exactly were the "unforgivable" conditions of which Gore speaks? And as far as the visas go, when exactly did Saudis have a right to enter the United States at whim without any consideration of security? Perhaps the former VP has forgotten, but most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

Though history would no doubt have proceeded differently after 9/11 had Al Gore been president, in the immediate aftermath, a vetting of all Saudi citizens in the country would have occurred regardless.

It's just common sense given that 12 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Give the US credit for not performing a wholesale "roundup" -- it would have happened in many countries in the same circumstances. One country in which indiscriminate roundups would have happened? Saudi Arabia. Of that I have no doubt.

But back to the original thought. What if Al Gore won Florida in 2ooo?

I have to wonder if George W Bush and other senior Republicans would be popping up in the heart of the Islamic world to denounce America. Somehow I doubt it.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:32 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

A billion dollars a year, and the best the CBC can do is tell us to go read blogs to get the news.

I wish I got a billion dollars a year to run this site.

From the interview between the CBC's Harry Forestell and Ezra Levant concerning the decision to publish the Muhammad cartoons in the Western Standard (starting at the 0:31 mark of the video interview):

EL: ...I don't mean to be rude Harry, but why hasn't the CBC shown the cartoons?

HF: You could easily cover that news without showing the cartoons.

EL: Well, I'm not sure "easily" because you wouldn't know what the cartoons are like.

HF: They've been published elsewhere and are available on the Internet...

OK, if I was on the board of governors of the CBC, I'd be apoplectic. Did Harry Forestell just tell a national CBC audience to change the channel, or get their news from blogs?!

Heck, I'm paying for the CBC with my taxes. I'm mad too! What the hell...can I get a tax credit for every nugget of news I get from someplace other than the CBC? Maybe the CBC can publish a list of links. Starting with Fox News Channel.

Is this what the CBC is going to be like going forward? Saving a buck by making sure they don't repeat news?

Of course not. What Harry Forestell said is CBC policy in this situation: if the story involves danger, the CBC will simply avoid the scary bits. The CBC audience will have face whatever dangers exist in gathering the news for themselves, while the CBC will provide...what? A safe workplace for its on-air personalities?

Harry Forestell is wrong, which makes it even worse. The cartoons are available on the Internet. But so are fakes. When any of us tune in to the news, part of the reason is that we are looking for news from a trusted source. Harry Forestell and his team of crack CBC reporters and researchers will vet the cartoons, confirm the accuracy of the images, filter out the lies and half-truths, and present to us an accurate picture.

But for this story, the CBC has decided to let the audience do that job. For what it's worth, hopefully the shameful exchange will make some people realize that maybe the CBC is not all that relevant as a source of news for Canadians.

Don't take my word on it. Ask Harry Forestell.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:48 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

One the lead stories in Canada today is news that the Western Standard will be publishing the Muhammad cartoons in today's issue.

Of course, Canadian Muslims are not happy:

Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, told the Globe and Mail that his organization will seek to have charges laid against the magazine under Canada's laws against distributing hate literature.

"It's unfortunate," said Elmasry, who had urged [pubisher Ezra] Levant not to republish the images. "I think he really goes against the will and the values of Canadians by this provocative action."

I contacted Ezra to ask him how exactly Elmasry urged him. What arguments did he use?

Apparently, "urging" Ezra constituted putting Ezra on the "cc" list for the news release.

That's it. Not even a direct email, but an offhand copy.

Here's what I think. If Elmasry really want to stop the publication, he would have made a major effort. A conversation with Ezra, maybe even a meeting. If Ezra held the line, then maybe more discussions about how to manage the reaction to make sure no one got hurt.

I think Elmasry is happy to see the cartoons published. Why? Well, that would be further speculation, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine a a leader of a Muslim community looking to use the cartoons as a way to further his own agenda, perhaps earn some extra respect inside the community.

As it is, Elmasry is in the news. He gets some exposure, babble on about hate crimes, and generally act like a castrated Taliban, looking for the Calgary police to do his dirty work.

I wonder how all those offended Muslims would feel if they knew exactly how much effort Elmasry put into preventing this insult to the Prophet from happening.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:00 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

If you care about freedom, you will go tomorrow to your favourite magazine vendor and pick up a copy of the Western Standard:

Cartoon jihad news

We're publishing them in our next issue, which rolls off the press on Monday. Looks like a small Calgary newspaper beat us to it.

Posted by Ezra Levant on February 11, 2006 at 08:16 AM

This is important. It matters. Don't be shy. And for goodness sake, don't be intimidated.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:31 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

The rule not to use the media to put people's lives in danger seems to be selectively applied.

News from AFP:

A top Taliban commander offered a reward of 100 kilograms of gold to anyone who kills the person responsible for "blasphemous" cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) reported.

If someone killed the cartoonist responsible for the cartoons in Denmark, the "Taliban will give 100 kilograms (244 pounds) of gold," Mullah Dadullah said in a telephone call to AIP from an unknown location, the Pakistan-based private news agency reported on Wednesday.

Dadullah also said the Taliban would give five kilograms of gold to anyone who killed a Danish, Norwegian or German soldier, AIP said.

So all we have to do is develop a warhead capable of tracking large concentrations of gold.

OK, seriously.

Here's the irony. A editor of a newspaper prints a doodle of a guy in a turban, and he is accused of irresponsibly putting people's lives in danger. On the other hand, another editor allowing his media outlet to spread the word that the death of this unarmed doodler will net you almost US$1,800,000, well, that's entirely different.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:40 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

Shocking. Not surprising, perhaps, given Canada's tradition in recent years to value inoffensiveness over individual freedom, but I'm idealistic enough to still be shocked:

The Cadre, UPEI's student newspaper has published the twelve infamous editorial cartoons that criticized aspects of Islam.

At the request of president Wade MacLauchlan, university administrators have removed all 2,000 copies of the paper from campus.

My God! It is something straight out of George Orwell's 1984. Thought police rounding up newspapers in order to suppress knowledge and keep the populace in peaceful complacency:

“When we realized that they were in circulation, we acted to round up the copies that were in circulation,’’ said UPEI president Wade MacLauchlan.

“We see it as a reckless invitation to public disorder and humiliation.’’

Since when is the UPEI president become responsible for the behaviour of others? If Catholics were to threaten to demonstrate against an advertisement for Planned Parenthood, would Wade MacLauchlan hoover up all the offensive papers?

How many violent riots against the Muhammad cartoons have there been in Canada? And how many on Prince Edward Island?

Worse yet, the newspaper school blog is no longer allowed to discuss the cartoons or comment on the banned paper:

The UPEI Student Union has withdrawn support of this week's issue of The Cadre and has also stated that Weblogs@UPEI "are no longer accepting comments on the cartoon issue" CTV's Steve Murphy noted during his broadcast tonight that it appears that they are now "censoring discussion about censorship".

In 2002, Concordia University allowed Palestinian radicals to run amok, ultimately forcing the cancellation of a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu. A one-time thing? Of course not. In 2004, Concordia decided that nothing had changed:

Concordia University’s decision last week to reject Hillel’s request to host former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak on campus opened a floodgate of protest.

Rabbi Reuben Poupko, a well-known community activist and spiritual leader of Beth Israel Beth Aaron Congregation, attended the rally in support of the students. “Through its actions, this university has made a clear admission that it cannot guarantee a safe environment for a distinguished speaker like Ehud Barak,” Poupko said prior to the rally. “They have also told us that any anti-Israel speakers are allowed to come here, but that pro-Israel speakers would cause a riot and are therefore denied access.” [emphasis added]

So there it goes. Muslims riot. Muslims burn. Muslims rampage. And Muslims get their way.

The rest of us act in a civilized manner. Our reward? In the institution that most symbolizes civilization, the university, we concede to the barbarians without even a semblance of resistance.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:31 PM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 4 kb.

From the Jerusalem Post:

The leader of Hizbullah, heading a march by hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims on Thursday, said US President George W. Bush and his secretary of state should "shut up" after they accused Syria and Iran of fueling protests over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

"There can be no settlement before an apology and there can be no settlement before laws are legislated by the European Parliament and the parliaments of European countries," [Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah] said.

Islamic nations should demand "a law committing the press and the media in the West that proscribes insulting our prophet. If this matter cannot be achieved that means [the West] insists on continuing this," he added.

Normally I would scoff at Nasrallah's ridiculous demand. A law indeed. This from the leader of terrorist organization.

I wonder what sort of law would please Nasrallah. I wonder how many body parts need to be lopped off before he is satisfied that the law is sufficient to the task of punishing doodlers and cartoonists.

But I worry that the same sort of people who have written our ridiculous hate crime legislation, the kind that earns a person a fine for calling someone names, are contemplating exactly this sort of thing.

I wouldn't put it past them.

Of course, such a law would have to be carefully tuned. You would have to ban any insults directed at Muslims, allow Muslims but not one else to insult Jews, and make sure it is open season on Christians.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:13 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

...but to sacrifice someone else, someone who has come to you for help, someone you are pledged to help?

From Forbes (via Malkin):

The Pakistan Medical Association has vowed not to prescribe medicines from firms based in some European countries where controversial cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed were published, said Shahid Rao, the body's general secretary for Punjab province.

The association will boycott drugs from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the 'blasphemous' drawings, Rao said.

'We have taken a unanimous decision and it will be immediately implemented in Pakistan,' Rao told AFP.

'Doctors in the country are very motivated on this issue,' he said. 'We would use alternate medicines in future till a public apology comes from these countries.'

Pharmacists have also vowed not to sell such medicines, Rao said.

The association is advising patients against using medicines from the offending countries if they are mistakenly prescribed by doctors, he added.

So what is the medical tradition in the Muslim world? Death before infidel medicine? Hardly:

Q: Are there treatments or medications, which are refused by Muslims?

A: Some Muslim physicians believe that healthcare practitioners should do everything in their power to save a life. Others do not believe in prolonging life beyond that which God has ordained – there should be no attempt to artificially prolong life (or misery). Healthcare professionals are believed to be assisting God in the care of patients but should not try to replace God. There is great emphasis on the sanctity of life, but also on the reality of death and the will of God.

However, Muslim's [sic] also believe there is a cure for every disease. Even the implantation of a pig's heart may be considered acceptable, if it is a medical necessity. Also alcohol or pig-based medications can be used if there are not other comparable alternatives and the medications are deemed to be medically necessary.

Everything in their power. Even accepting medicines developed by scientists who have no direct responsibility for the Muhammad cartoons.

Sounds to me these doctors aren't very good Muslims. Perhaps a few beheadings are in order. I certainly don't condone beheadings -- I'm just trying to be culturally sensitive here.

Ill patients will die so that these doctors can make a point. Young and old -- taken by death over a cartoon. Denied medicine by a medical practitioner eager to curry favour with...who? Allah? Allah will be pleased to watch these people die in agony?

Maybe. Probably. He seems to be that sort of God, doesn't he?

Of course not everyone will be denied medicine. I bet there will be exceptions for the right people, especially those with money.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 05:03 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

A typical leftist response:

I think Reason points out that some of the cartoons shout fire in a crowded theatre.

As far as the Moslem reaction goes, I think it unfortunate that some take their animus out against Danes in general.

But on the whole, the newspapers walked up and whacked a hornet's nest with a stick. I can't get all worked up about a few stings.

In four sentences, this fellow has just handed the Islamists complete victory.

When you shout fire in a crowded theatre, people flee in a panic because the enemy is flame and smoke. It cannot be reasoned with. It won't minimize its impact on your well-being because you pleaded with it. It is a remorseless chemical and physical process, a process that will consume you if you don't get out of the way.

That is why people run from a theatre that is on fire. That is why people risk getting injured and killed fleeing -- to stay is guarantee injury or death. And that is why it is illegal to shout "Fire!" when there isn't one.

Are Muslims the human equivalent of fire? Are they incapable of reason? Are they mindlessly following rules as immutable as gravity?

Frankly, if I were a Muslim, I'd be insulted. But then insulting a Muslim is no great feat, it seems. Too bad.

But follow this person's train of thought to the logical conclusion. Muslims are incapable of managing their emotions. If insulted, they will, en masse, react violently. They are permamently stuck in mob-think. Therefore the onus is on us, rational Westerners, to pander to them, to soothe them, to avoid riling them.

Fine. Today it is about cartoons. What if tomorrow a university wants to host a talk by an Israeli politician? Is the university guilty of "whacking the hornet's nest"?

Concordia University did exactly that in 2002, and paid the consequence when the free speech was deemed offensive by the mindless Muslim mob incapable of governing their own behaviour, or so this person would have us believe. Presumably he did not get "worked up" about what happened at Concordia since the university should have known better than to offend Muslims.

And where does it end? What laundry list of offenses to Muslim sensibilities should be reviewed by every public figure and organization for fear of stirring up the mob?

The cartoons were deliberately offensive, but they also had a deliberate point to make about the fact that short of libel, falsehoods, and incitements to violence, a newspaper must be able to print anything. That it might choose not to is a separate matter. To suggest that Muslims are somehow incapable of responding rationally to a drawing, and so the newspaper should have not printed the cartoons accomplishes three things:

• it puts the blame for the violence on the shoulders of the newspapers
• it infantilizes Muslims as a whole
• it empowers Muslims to demand any concession desired by mere threat of mass riot

Why not get it over with and implement Sharia law right now?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:47 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

The Vatican makes a statement, but miss the reason that this crisis over the cartoons has started in the first place.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:18 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 790 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Hitchens hits it out of the park http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/

Posted by: Stephen at February 05, 2006 02:46 PM (upnxu)

2 0818. FoolishUse PressFreedom Not the time to feed Iran, Syria, Saudi frenzy. Canada..wait till democracy takes hold.

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 05, 2006 03:39 PM (rmMzv)

3 I've often wondered over the years what the atmosphere of Nazi appeasement was like in Europe in my parents generation in the 1930's. Now I know...because I see the exact same thing today with the West's appeasement of Islamofascism. Sooner or later, the nations of Western Civilization will either voluntarily or be forced by ever-worsening events to grow some b*lls.

Posted by: Dave at February 05, 2006 03:52 PM (WJIud)

4 "One can understand satire about a priest but not about G-d. With reference to Islam, we could understand satire on the uses and customs and behavior, but not about the Quran, Allah and the Prophet," he said. Does the fact the Cardinal Achille Silvestrini used the term "the Prophet" instead of "their Prophet" imply that he accepts Muhammad as a valid prophet of G-d? And not just Silvestrini, I can't count the number of news commentators and reporters who refer to Muhammad as "The Prophet".

Posted by: Jim Wilkinson at February 05, 2006 05:49 PM (wUnaf)

5 White House. Westminster. The Vatican. AGWN. Which one doesn't fit?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 05, 2006 07:34 PM (vGIFg)

6 The Cardinal has a point. If, hypothetically, some Christians were to do bad things, would that justify cartoonists making blasphemous drawings about Jesus? No, it wouldn't. There's no justification, ever, for insulting Jesus. Now, objectively speaking, Mohammed doesn't compare with Jesus, but from a Muslim's point of view, there's no justification for those drawings. Commentary on the issues of the day is one thing, but blasphemy (in the eyes of the believer in question) is another. And you're right that Muslims don't defend Christians in similar situations, but that's irrelevant. If we want to convince people not to insult our religion, it makes it easier to do so if we defend everyone across the board. It's good strategy, and there's no reason to abandon it just because someone else doesn't follow it.

Posted by: Hamilcar at February 05, 2006 09:00 PM (m9iq2)

7 The Danes Freedom of Speech petition: Danish:http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html 10802. Naum I am Christian Assyrian originally from Iraq. Let me tell you about this muslims. They are very unkind towards difference of beliefs. They conquered the lands my people were on for millenia and killed many of us. They did the same to countless other people throughout asia. They are like forest fire, spreading fast and devouring whatever in its paths. Good luck to you on you fight against them. We lost and we payed dearly. You should not let this happen to you. USA 10753. Theo Van Gogh Do you all remember me? Don't let my death be in vain. Don't let more people die the way I did. Freedom of expression is vital to your way of life, give up that to those who murdered me and all is lost. Peace be with you, my European bretheren. Heaven 0726. Richard Purdy We, the British people, will stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Denmark in the struggle against the hate mongers of Islam. We shall fight for freedom until freedom prevails. Manchester, England 0818. TG Foolish Use Press Freedom Not the time to feed Iran, Syria, Saudi frenzy. Canada..wait till democracy takes hold. I thought one may have to scroll a long way to find profound comments. Not so. There are plenty of powerful comments right at the top section. My comment in favour of temperance and patience is buried under the masses stampeding to declare for freedom of speech at any cost. I defer to the majority of course, yet my Scot heritage doesn’t like the *at all costs* part. I suggest that some measure of planning and stealth must be used to foil those who would clamp down on all our freedoms if they could. We must realize that not all Muslems are bad people. It pays to keep the good Muslems as friends, since they are best equipped to take back their religion to the true peaceful values it originally held. I prefer not to get mad just yet, but to ease up on the inflaming cartoons for now to save lives and the burning of embassies. What a silly waste of money that is. [ Scot heritage thing again]. We can then concentrate on helping to firm up the democratic framework in Afghanistan and Iraq. Keep our eye on the ball in other words. It is democracy that dictators are trying to kill here. This whole outrage about cartoons is fueled by the people who fanned hate into Lebanon against the Jews for [32] thirty - two years and more. Do we want to give Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia more fuel with which to inflame the Jihadists? Never mind the protests, as justified as they are. Flood Iraq and Afghanistan with more troops and give all the good Muslems the democracy they have shown they want by going to the polls in the face of death. We can not afford to back out of this as we did in Viet Nam. Dictators in the Middle-East use any sign of backing-off as fuel to ramp up terrorist acts just as they have done with the cartoons fiasco. We will not run screaming in the streets as fundamentalists do. We will apply more pressure and resolve to help Muslems resist the other *Saddams* operating with stealth against freedom and fairness. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 05, 2006 09:51 PM (rmMzv)

8 The point is not "offensive" cartoons. The fact is, that the cartoons characterize accurately so much of what Islam has become, as it becomes ever more radicalized. How blind are people? I've actually been to lefty sights that compare Islamist burnings of embassies to Christians protesting against "dysney films" or even burning books. Islamists are killing tens of thousands of people, mostly their own, in what is growing to be an orgy of killing world wide... yet we sleep. It's like the Jews being rounded up in Nazi Germany prior to the war, and the west turning away because the thought of confronting evil was just too "uncomfortable". When I see lefties actually stating that if negative characterizations of Christ were made, that Christians would be doing the same as the Muslims, I literally have to laugh. Christ has been lampooned and visciously attacted in literature, media, and art for decades now. He's been portrayed as a gay child lover in Broadway hits, and the writers are praised.... yet... where are the bombs, where are the writers hiding for fear of being murdered by Rightwing Christian Zealots. Lefties and the weak "progressive" politicians who apologize for Muslims do so out of fear. Any person with high profile who challenges them today, must immediately get 24 hour armed protection for at least the next decade. Who amoung us would go to a Muslim rally anywhere in Canada and hold up a sign, even a tame one, criticizing them? It'd be potential suicide. I've dealt with Muslims in university, and for every 10 I've met, there are 2 nutbars. And that, is a higher ratio than there were true Nazis in Germany prior to WW2. It's not scientific, but my personal experience with Canadian Muslims has me very deeply concerned. Nobody, no editor, no state leader, calls Muslims out on their mind boggling hypocracy without risking their life. Yet, our progressive elite, actually believe that what Muslims are doing compares to Christian and Conservative reactions to other issues. It's time to stop pandering to Leftist fantasy, and realize that a clash of civilizations is occuring... it is literally the barbarians against us.

Posted by: debris trail at February 05, 2006 10:04 PM (Y1ykG)

9 "I've dealt with Muslims in university, and for every 10 I've met, there are 2 nutbars" from my experience about 2 in every 10 University period are nutbars, so probably not the best example... all muslims that I know... even the devout ones are decent reasonalbe people, In fact I find that morally and philisophically I tend to have more in common with them than I do with 90% of Canadians... and I'm a White middle age male of predominately Anglo-Saxon decent who happens to hold fairly traditonal Christian values... now for any nutbar who thinks I sympathize with violent and fanatic fundamentalist muslims that's not what I said... I said I have things in common with moderate, resonable and normal muslim families.

Posted by: Sierra at February 05, 2006 10:48 PM (qc4a5)

10 Clearly there are elements of Islam that embrace violence as a principal response to most offenses to their values or beliefs. But we would be liars if we did not admit that the history of the Christian church is riddled with similar violence in "defence" of our beliefs and way of life. We should deplore violence in all its forms and from all political and religious stripes. We should also deplore the broad sweeping generalizations found in some of the above posts which try to brand all Muslims as barbarians - ignoring the very peaceful and peace-loving Islamic community we have here in Canada, while driving even deeper wedges between our respective cultures and communities.

Posted by: Sean at February 06, 2006 12:21 AM (Mmu9D)

11 Why do Muslims respond to anything with violence - either in action or thought? The one I like is the peaceful protest in Ottawa where one placard read "CUT OFF THE HAND OF THE CARTOONIST". So much for the religion of peace.

Posted by: Fiumara at February 06, 2006 07:11 AM (nDgG8)

12 Hitchens does knock this one out of the park! The problem is Islam and Muslims. The problem is also people of faith. Faith and people who cling to it as their justification for everything they do are worthy of mockery and scorn. Faith is believing in something for no provable reason; holding to something despite the facts. If it be a Catholic, Jew, Muslin, or assorted Christian claiming anything because of faith, they are worthy of scorn. For all I care Muhammad, Jesus and Moses can all lick donkey balls.

Posted by: Nick the Dick at February 06, 2006 09:21 AM (yJ5ul)

13 Nick, Don't you think that you exercise faith everyday? For example, if you drive a car then you exercise it every time you pass another speeding car on an undivided road or highway. Faith that the other driver - whom you've never met and have no factual evidence about their ability to drive, their emotional state, or their intentions toward you - will stay on their side of the road and not kill you by turning into you at the last minute. So, count yourself amongst those who are worthy of scorn. Now, I agree that claiming one's faith as a justification for acts against others is wrong, I just think that you can't out and out dismiss faith as bad because it is used incorrectly, any more than cars should be banned because some people purposely run others over with them.

Posted by: Active Listener at February 06, 2006 09:57 AM (Uagor)

14 All religions which do not respect the opinions of other should be should be questioned and exposed as a hate group, example the catholic church, radical islam, necon- evangelists, etc.

Posted by: CplDC at February 06, 2006 10:02 AM (GCfGe)

15 "Respect" does not mean "agree". One religion is not being disrespectful when it states that another religion is wrong. And it should be prepared to hear the same from the other religion. Respect means you nod in recognition of the obvious -- you disagree -- and then you move on to areas where you can work together. Do both religions value good works with the poor? Sounds like an opportunity.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 06, 2006 10:06 AM (AvjIr)

16 Frankly, The christian religion is insulted every day. By the Media 1.0 establishment, by the elitist liberal 'inteligencia', and by the courts. We're moving beyond a secular society, into a society of forced nihilism, where anyone professing a believe in traditional fundamental Christianity is subject to ridicule and vilification. (only look back at the media's treatment of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper to see this point) There must be a lot of Anglo-European self loathing in the liberal-left ranks, as they will champion any cause, of any peoples especially if it comes at the expense or embarrassment of Anglo-European people. Mrs King recently died, and after 2 valiant lifetimes of work, (Mr & Mrs King) haven't been able to change the world. The left still em brasses racial politics, people are still judged by the colour of their skin and not the content of their character. Sadly for minorities, their character is discounted.

Posted by: Curtis at February 06, 2006 10:27 AM (heo8b)

17 Active, That is a big leap you just made. YouÂ’re talking about something I can see experience and touch everyday. Driving can be measured and identified by an independent observer. Claiming the supernatural is an extra-ordinary claim, requiring the same extra-ordinary level of proof. Your lack argument is without merit and worthy of scorn.

Posted by: Nick the Dick at February 06, 2006 11:58 AM (yJ5ul)

18 Nick, Now I think it is you that is making the big leap. Proofs depend on a common base of beliefs. The current scientific worldview that, it appears, you and I share is based on faith in the belief that you and I are independent entities sharing a physical world with a set of natural laws that we experience in common and that facilitates us being able to communicate with each other. You cannot prove these things to be true any more than you can prove to a solipsist that another individual exists. Our own experiences, coupled with explanations received ("taught to us") from other people have allowed us to adopt this common framework because it works for us and helps us to predict the outcomes to our actions and explains events we see around us. Animism could be put forward as another internally consistent world view that would also explain what we see, but that is not a view that is often proposed in Western society because it brings other baggage with it that we generally reject. Coming to a faith in a supernatural being happens in much the same way, it is based on how well an individual feels that their life experiences align with, are explained, and/or are assisted by the teaching attributed to or that are proported to reveal that supernatural being. I happen to share the scientific world view with you because I have faith that we were all created by a supernatural being as independent entities that share a common physical world with common natural laws. I would welcome you explaining how you came to determine that you are not alone in an unknowable world and that you can trust the observations of your sight and touch.

Posted by: Active Listener at February 06, 2006 12:35 PM (Uagor)

19 Nick the Dick and Active Listener debate the classic argument. Nick, and I fail to see the concrete evidence where any religion, [man-made club], is based on a true reality. I suspect there could be a superior force or entity, but I honestly do not know. Active Listener has declared he believes in a superior entity and / or religion based on faith alone. Guess that kind of faith is OK when it is aimed at doing good and not killing those who are on the fence. as I am. Those questions have always been unresolved for centuries. I just wish we would tolerate the differences rather than trying to kill off those who are not on our side of the fence. TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at February 06, 2006 01:08 PM (rmMzv)

20 Tony, I agree - we need more tolerance and less violence. Since, as hopefully we all will agree, faith is not based on irrefutable proofs, all faith must admit the possibility of error. If all people that declare an allegiance to a faith would be humble enough to recognize that fact, then they would be a lot less likely to kill others over disagreements and offenses.

Posted by: Active Listener at February 06, 2006 02:11 PM (Uagor)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Defender of the faith:

She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."

Queen Elizabeth? No.

Michaelle Jean, Governor-General of Canada, and the Queen's representative? No.

It was Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, speaking on April 15, 2005.

[Turns out Little Green Footballs already posted this.]

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:03 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.