|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 11, 2006 0:20:21 GMT -5
While the cartoons are insensitive and distasteful, they are a product of a long held view of "freedom of speech" in Western society. I believe that the reaction of SOME Muslim is nothing more then to serve some groups or leaders agenda for power or hatred. In fact, if you look at Iran and Syria, I believe that it's flamed by people in power for their own benefit.
This "kill the blasphemers" and "Islamic vigilantism" harks back to dark Medieval times and reflects poorly on the majority of Muslim's who are educated and moderate. In fact, some of the Muslem religious figures amd enlightened Muslim leaders are condemning the militant reaction and calling it a "distorted and dark image of the Muslim Faith".
Quote form London Times....
"The influential Muslim thinker Tariq Ramadan, who has a large following among European Muslims, called the response excessive. “I condemn the calls to boycott or to kill,” he said. “Muslims have to get used to living in a global world. Their consciousness must be sufficiently robust to master their hurt feelings"
As for "freedom of speech".....
While I believe that we should have freedom of speech, it is often used in a hypocritical and selective manner by Western Society. In Canada, we limit it even more and try to box it within the confines of "anti-discrimination" that constantly expand to cover every groups self interest. Courts and politicians are constantly limiting, defining and re-defining laws that "curb the inciting of hatred" but it also serves to curb any un-orthodox view, or worse still, to serve the special interests of certain groups. "Canada is a pleasantly authoritarian country," said Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
In Canada, no one would stop the Toronto Star or LaPresse posting those cartoons, but they would be dragged into court the minute they posted a paragraph denying the holocaust. The Supreme Court of Canada said that denying the holocaust is "willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group". While the cartoons are not? Blind double standard and farcical hypocrisy in Canadian society, to say the least.
In my opinion, freedom of speech should have very few limitations. The role of the government is to educate people and then the people can make up their mind of what is right and wrong. It should NEVER be the governments educating people on what is right or wrong. While we believe we are "free", it's nothing more then an blinding illusion for censorship and suppression of civil liberties to stealthily creep into our lives. If we as free people don't limit the government and the politicians, the government and vote whoring politicains will limit us.
What are your thoughts on the subject?
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Feb 11, 2006 0:51:27 GMT -5
I dislike censorship, but there are some cases where it's required, namely a lie that too many would beleive, in this I would include blatant distortions, such as holocaust denial. However, no level of censorship should apply for serious academics discussing just about any issue - but in the general press and publishing houses, censorship should be extremely limited to cases where it will strongly hurt a part of the community.
All that being said, I don't see the cartoons as being all that terrible myself, it's just that they're at a crossroads - they're banned under the muslim religion, yet represent a basic freedom of the press issue here. To us it's freedom of the press, to them it's a heretical gesture, made to be insulting to boot.
I think the cartoons were tasteless, but burning down embassies is far more tasteless.
A mature response from the Muslim world about Western racism and discrimation would've left me feeling a cad about smiling when I saw those sketches. Their immature response leaves me thinking that the sketches may have more truth to them than I gave them credit for in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 11, 2006 9:49:43 GMT -5
I've spent the last half hour typing and erasing . . . I give up. There really is no such thing as free speech. There is a hint of it, in that people can say what they want when they want, but as soon as someone is offended . . . POW! -- in trouble.
Deny the holocaust? Anti-Semite.
Fight official bilingualism? Anti-French.
Disagree with gay marriage? Homophobic.
But who are we in civilized Canada to say "show the cartoons"? Christians rail against cartoons of the Pope, cartoons of fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative/whatevers who are cut to the heart because they are made fun of for their beliefs, art (OK, I think so-called but here is my censorship coming through) . . .
As I say, as long as it doesn't offend me anything goes. But as soon as what I believe is spoken against free speech has gone too far.
So let's get off the high horse and be honest. The cartoons were in bad taste. Admit it. The protests have gone too far. Stop them (and stop being more inflammatory with the "extra" pictures).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 11, 2006 12:34:30 GMT -5
Dead on Franko.....homophobic, anti-Semite, anti-French redneck!
Did you notice that I can brand you from the comfort of my chair and look pretty? We reached a point that reverse branding is a perfectly legitimate tool to shut people up. You are a redneck pick-a-phobe if you criticize ANY group. Actually, forget criticism, you are a phobic redneck until you have been conditioned enough to "think" the proper way.
Elsewhere on this forum I went into my usual rant about vote whoring politicians manipulating us into accepting "gun murders" and not gangs as the cause of all the murdering misery. We are reaching a sickening point of manipulation in our society when even gang land criminals are hidden behind the political correctness of blaming inanimate objects.
There are no more dead beat parents......there is "child poverty". After all, who would give a damn about dead beat parents, but, hide them behind children and all is not lost in the war of manipulation. Do you disagree? Then you are a insensitive selfish redneck. There are no gang murdering people, it's "gun crimes". After all, why focus on why if you can deflect it to a piece of metal? Do you disagree? You must be a gun totting redneck. How can you object to homosexual "teachings" your children from a "downtrodden and discriminated" group? Then you are a hompophobic redneck. The Holocaust? Sure, it happened but why make public debate illegal? Why define it as a "hate crime"? And how is it that Muslim clerics can preach the demise of Western society and it's not a hate crime? Do you DARE question the tens of billions spend by Indian and Northairn Affairs? How DARE you, you redneck.
Why is it if you dare not show the amount of "understanding" that every group demands then you are "phobic"? Worse still, vote whoring politicians just fall over themselves to look good to any distinct group that promises them a vote. If punk rocker scream discrimination and promise politicians a block vote, then be sure that nose and nipple rings will be made into law.
Vote whoring politicians "kinder-gentler" control and manipulation of social thinking and free speech is suffering in what is becoming a increasingly restrictive, authoritarian state......
P.S. Just for the record, I brought up some sensitive subject matter is to make a point and it does not mean I am for or against any of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habit on Feb 11, 2006 12:38:18 GMT -5
mmmmmm.... Danish......
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 15, 2006 12:43:59 GMT -5
Freedom of speech is not a license to use abusive, derogatory or defamatory speech.
The biggest radio station in Quebec city, CHOI, is about to lose its CRTC license and close down because it was common place for them to use abusive, derogatory or defamatory speech and hide it all under the umbrella of freedom of speech. While I'm no Florence Nightingale, I often cringed listening to that station and what message it was sending out and now wish the CRTC and Supreme Court will hold their word and close them down as a spectacular warning that as a media outlet you have to be aware of the social impact you can have and act towards this in a responsible way.
Our modern western society is greatly lacking morale, spiritual and political guidance and that leads to a population that is more and more cynical and less and less dedicated to taking an active and constructive role in the society they're in. This ultimately makes our society decadent and spells the fall of it.
That's how I feel about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Feb 15, 2006 20:19:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 16, 2006 1:04:46 GMT -5
The person who drew the picture is abusing his freedom of speech to draw an abusive, derogatory and defamatory picture of the Liberal Party of Canada. His portrayal of the Liberal party as pirates is nothing less then scandalous and defames the hard work and good intents of the Liberal party. Further, his portrayal of the people of Quebec as children demeans Quebecers. In FACT, this person cartoon is libelous under Canadian law. How many years should he spend in a gulag?  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  The person who drew this picture is potraying Mr. Chaney as a grossly obese person. Thus this cartoon is draw with intent to be derogatory and defamatory. How many years should this person spedn in a gulag? Further, the person who linked that cartoon to this forum is promoting this libelous action and should be punished equally. How many years in a gulag? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That a Canadian could even consider putting in the Reform party in drag utterly staggers me. They are so DUMB, such rednecks, and so against what Canadians generally value.
For me it's rather like Roman Emperors playing a circus for the dumb dumbs in the colliseum. Callling people as "rednecks and dumb" and "dumb dumbs" is abusive and derogatory. That I portray the right wing of the Conservatives as rather stunted human beings, is only because, they are rather stunted human beings. A lot of them are themselves likely the victims of earlier physical and emotional abuse, common histories for people who go for authoritarian types as typify the far right. That's where we get our fascists and Davidians. Abusive, derogatory or defamatory writings. How many years should Torontohab spend in a gulag? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes the economy flourished under Martin, but how did it flourish? It flourish by robbing Canadians blindThat statement is unsubstantiated and is willfully potraying the Liberal party as thieves. It is abusive, derogatory AND defamatory. How many years should Skilly spend in a gulag? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I HATE the Liberals. Hate is not something I aspire to or willingly nourish but it has been fed by the arrogance and the sheer ineptitude of the Liberal government. They have done almost everything wrong, meanwhile, they have treated us with CONTEMPT until it comes to voting time and then they treat us like MORONS trying to buy our votes with our own money.Slanderous, abusive, derogatory and defamatory beyond any human tolerance. Forget puting me in a gulag. I should be hung. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy
~~
Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.~Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Free speech seems to be drowning under the VICTIM CULTURE that is gripping our world. ANY and EVERY group on the planet that does not like what others say about it potrays itself as "sufferers". Those groups proclaim that ANY negative or unflatering opinion is demeaning their "Holocaust of suffering" or their holy and devine beliefs. This is nothing more then an attempt to stifle others opinions, or worse yet, to censor others. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 16, 2006 9:21:52 GMT -5
 Free speech seems to be drowning under the VICTIM CULTURE that is gripping our world. ANY and EVERY group on the planet that does not like what others say about it potrays itself as "sufferers". Those groups proclaim that ANY negative or unflatering opinion is demeaning their "Holocaust of suffering" or their holy and devine beliefs. This is nothing more then an attempt to stifle others opinions, or worse yet, to censor others. And we respond . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Feb 16, 2006 12:40:25 GMT -5
I think you're taking it to extreme but yes, as a microcosm of society, HABSRUS is way less tolerant towards abusive, derogatory and defamatory remarks than most other internet post boards. You know it, you defend this and you uphold this as fiercely as every other moderators. We've been called censors, elitists, snobs because of our way of running things but those who ultimately like this place, also like the fact this it is run in a tight way. While we don't send nobody in gulags, we've banned, censored, warned and explained our position to posters who crossed the line we draw. We were one of the first site to come up with and uphold a COC. We're one of the site with the highest moderator/poster ratio. It's much easier to let everthing go and brush it all under the rug of free speech but it's a choice we're doing here not to let that happen. I'm certain those who've been banned for repeatedly crossing the lines, cried to high heaven for how unfairly they were treated, how much of a true victim they are, what kind of fascists we are. But that's that.
In the real world, media outlets must display some kind of responsibility towards what they air or print. It's not about throwing people in gulags, it's about giving a direction and it's about forcing those media to express their views or opinions in an intelligent respectful way.
People know when they cross the line and using freedom of speech to try to blur that line is very often the tool of those who knew they were crossing the line from the beginning. I don't fall for that and salute those who don't weaken our very fibre by always lowering the bar to the lowest possible denominator. Humans needs guidance.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 16, 2006 13:51:38 GMT -5
Aand that brings us around to the penultimate ethical question once again: who is it that we look to for guidance? HA? Editorial Boards? The EU? The UN? Self-regulation has not worked . . . and in fact stifles dialogue. If we all tread lightly so as not to offend anyone we won't ever get beyond "how's the weather?" (and may not even make it that far, as one man's terrible rainy day is a farmer's salvation). I have no answers. But I know that there will always be someone doing something "just to prove a point" and another reacting to it. In this . . . Jyllands-Posten was well within its rights to print the pics . . . but sometimes we should give up our rights for the benefit of all mankind. Not from fear of retribution. From respect. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 16, 2006 21:18:11 GMT -5
And we respond . . . Since you are on your knees...... "As King of Humpalot, I dub thee Sir Franko of the Knights of the Mighty Thong". |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 16, 2006 21:28:57 GMT -5
I think you're taking it to extreme but yes, as a microcosm of society, HABSRUS is way less tolerant towards abusive, derogatory and defamatory remarks than most other internet post boards. You know it, you defend this and you uphold this as fiercely as every other moderators. We've been called censors, elitists, snobs because of our way of running things but those who ultimately like this place, also like the fact this it is run in a tight way. While we don't send nobody in gulags, we've banned, censored, warned and explained our position to posters who crossed the line we draw. We were one of the first site to come up with and uphold a COC. We're one of the site with the highest moderator/poster ratio. It's much easier to let everthing go and brush it all under the rug of free speech but it's a choice we're doing here not to let that happen. I'm certain those who've been banned for repeatedly crossing the lines, cried to high heaven for how unfairly they were treated, how much of a true victim they are, what kind of fascists we are. But that's that. In the real world, media outlets must display some kind of responsibility towards what they air or print. It's not about throwing people in gulags, it's about giving a direction and it's about forcing those media to express their views or opinions in an intelligent respectful way. People know when they cross the line and using freedom of speech to try to blur that line is very often the tool of those who knew they were crossing the line from the beginning. I don't fall for that and salute those who don't weaken our very fibre by always lowering the bar to the lowest possible denominator. Humans needs guidance. Doc, We hardly EVER draw the line on what is discussed. What we draw a "fierce" line is when posters disrespect one another. We have openly discussed seperation, religion, politics and many other things in this very forum WITH respect to one another. For all intents and purposes, we have not limited an open discussion, nee, freedom of speech, we just controlled the method and impact of delivery. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Feb 16, 2006 21:35:23 GMT -5
In this . . . Jyllands-Posten was well within its rights to print the pics . . . but sometimes we should give up our rights for the benefit of all mankind. Not from fear of retribution. From respect. Tolerance does not mean disrespect and respect does not mean censorship. It is this very narrow path where CIVILIZED and INTELLEGENT discussion must walk. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 16, 2006 22:31:08 GMT -5
In this . . . Jyllands-Posten was well within its rights to print the pics . . . but sometimes we should give up our rights for the benefit of all mankind. Not from fear of retribution. From respect. Tolerance does not mean disrespect and respect does not mean censorship. It is this very narrow path where CIVILIZED and INTELLEGENT discussion must walk. Which returns us to some of your reminders of earlier conversations on the board, where intellegent conversation degenerated into uncivilized rhetoric, name-calling, and out-and-out . . . oops, am I doing it now too? The line is so fine and can so easily unwittingly be crossed. Tolerance is such an ugly word because it can be defined in diferent ways. I tolerate you can mean I put up with you (barely) or I accept your different point of view. And it can be pushed down a throat: tolerate me (=accept me) or else!. Ah, life. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Feb 18, 2006 20:12:34 GMT -5
What about the "the thief who cries fire in a crowded restaurant?" Is that a freedom of speech issue?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 23, 2006 21:14:29 GMT -5
How many years should Skilly spend in a gulag? Gulag, thats the third ingredient in Screech right? I'll go willingly!! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Feb 23, 2006 21:19:11 GMT -5
What about the "the thief who cries fire in a crowded restaurant?" Is that a freedom of speech issue? No. I believe in Canada it is against the law to knowingly misrepresent a safety concern. Yelling "Fire" is one such event ... not sure the exact crime ... mischief probably. Anither example is talking about bombs in an airport or on a plane ... |
|
