Ramblings & Musings

The notorious columnist wrote in Toronto Star:

Gary Younge, the New York-based black British columnist, has written this about the Danish cartoon controversy in The Nation magazine:

Muslims have, in effect, been vilified twice: once through the original cartoons and then again for having the gall to protest them. Such logic recalls the words of the late South African black nationalist Steve Biko: `Not only are whites kicking us, they are telling us how to react to being kicked

BS. Cartoons were stupid but not extremely offensive. Reaction was clearly undeadequate. Playing the race card ("whites") is the sign of complete moral dishonesty

Confusion continues to mark the Western response to the issue. Some of this is because we are in uncharted waters. But something else is at work — double standards and insidious attempts at delegitimizing the Muslim protests.

Notorious British historian David Irving has just been sentenced in Vienna to three years for denying the Holocaust. Radical British Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al Masri has been jailed, among other things, for inciting hatred. About time.

Yet there's silence from freedom of speech advocates who were on their pulpits just days ago.

Irving was denying the Holocaust during many years and got 3 years in prison only because he was stupid enough to go to Austria despite the fact that he was barred from entering that country. In UK, USA, Canada, even in France (like Garaudy) he would be completely safe (if allowed to enter). Zundel was completely safe in Canada, but lost his Landed Immigrant status due to prolonged stay in USA.
One of Waterloo professors spoke freely that everyone in Israel older than 18 is a valid target ["So everyone in Israel and anyone and everyone in Israel, irrespective of gender, over the age of 18 is a valid target?" - "Yes, I would say"]. This learned ... definitely understood that it included pregnant women and elderly people. Was he disciplined? I

What would happen with Danish cartoonists if they went to, say, Morocco? Leave alone Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Denying the Holocaust is not the same as poking fun at a prophet, some might say. Muslims might respond that the cartoons contravened the historical fact that Muhammad was not a terrorist with a bomb in his turban.

Well, this was so many centuries ago... And the person in question was also a political leader, conqueror like Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, Tengiz Khan or Tamerlan.

Should be these figures also forbidden to touch? The obscene pictures of Sharon published in English newspapers also contravened the historical facts. What about TorStar lies about 500 killed in Jenin? Had TorStar apologied?

Masri's case offers a better parallel. Besides terrorism-related charges, he was convicted of fomenting hate against Britons. Muslims said the Danish cartoons did exactly that to them. How does a democracy decide which hate is worse?

British court decided this. It has a jurisdiction over UK. There was no legal authority which decided that the Danish cartoons are fomenting hate.

In France, the Catholic Church last year won a lawsuit against a fashion designer depicting The Last Supper with semi-nude women instead of the apostles. Where were the noisy advocates of freedom of speech then? Or, do they pop up only to claim the right to bash Muslims?

Where were the noisy advocates of the rights of Moslems when genocide of people of Darfur was discussed. When was the author of the article when posters with equalization of the Star of David and Nazi swastika were published?

Note that the court decision in Girbauld's affair caused the public outcry in France. Also note the difference: Catholic bishops asked for billboards with the offending poster were removed. They did not request apologies from the author or French authorities. There is a difference: a newspaper which is of very little interest to anyone next morning and the billboard in the public place where catholic were forced to see it. And the court gave to Mr and Mlle Girbauld 3 days to remove billboards.

Also may be the Danish court would side with Danish imams and request the offended issue should not be distributed anymore, if they decided to go to the court. Catholic Church started lawsuit against a fashion designer, the imams preferred to go to foreign countries. No parallels.

Intermediate conclusion The author juggles European countries as if all these countries had exactly the same laws. This is a fallacy.

The cartoon episode has little or nothing to do with blasphemy. Some Muslims invoke it but that's a tangent democracies need no longer take.

But then why all the fuss about? If political cartoons are allowed, if historical truth is not protected anymore the blasphemy is the only explanation. And the rioters clearly speak about blasphemy.

The real issue is that freedom of speech has limits, by law and by social dictates (self-censorship).

Newspapers do not publish cartoons that may be hurtful, hateful, xenophobic or racist.

Do thinking people want to make the case for resurrecting the old caricatures of fat-lipped blacks, hook-nosed Jews or cross-eyed Chinese?

Because this would be a racial/ethnic slurs. Faith is the part of the ideology - like ideas of the Democracy, communism or Darwinism. And actually every faith is the denial of all other faithes.

"I don't find the cartoons offensive," some people say. That's not the point. Nor is it that some Muslims think so. That's like invoking a lapsed Catholic to tell most Catholics what to think.

It's best in a democracy "to let each group decide what it finds most offensive, so long as the implied taboo is not too onerous," writes Robert Wright in a thoughtful opinion page article in The New York Times. He is the author of The Moral Animal.

I find many articles in TorStar offensive. So what?

"Look, here's an old depiction of Muhammad," some others say, to discredit the assertion that Islam forbids depiction of the Prophet.

There's no denying such depictions exist. Miniatures featured Muhammad in various scenes but only a few showed his face, while others blanked out the space. Some centuries ago, Muslims came to a consensus against such depictions.

We risk breaking the democratic balance when we poke people in the eye about their beliefs. Doing so to Muslims in these tense times is especially reprehensible.

Yeah, right. All animals are equal but some of them are more equal than others. And the author is especially more equal.

The worldwide protests are being portrayed as the work of radicals or of such governments as Iran and Syria. Some no doubt are. But manipulating the public is not the exclusive preserve of Muslim radicals or Muslim governments.

If the manipulating of the public opinion results in the shifted votes - this is a Democracy; if it results in the murder and arson - this is an incitement.

Suggesting that only the fanatics are upset is to minimize the offence caused by what the United Church has called an "incitement to racial and religious hatred."

Nobody says that only fanatics were upset; however only fanatics used murder and arson to express their frustration. I am upset by anti-Israel stance of this bunch of bigots called United Church. And by
Mr Elmasry or by some of TorStar publications. But I am not urging to kill anybody or burn anything. I just say "$%&#!".

Those defending the Danish newspaper keep saying it did not mean to offend Muslims. Really?

Here's Flemming Rose, the editor who commissioned the drawings, talking about Danish Muslims: "This is about the question of integration and how compatible is the religion of Islam with modern secular society — how much does an immigrant have to give up and how much does the receiving culture have to compromise." And: "People are no longer willing to pay taxes to help support someone called Ali who comes from a country with a different language and culture that's 5,000 miles away."

I do not remember TorStar protecting belief of Stockwell Dell in the humans coexisting with the Dino's. Surely this was ridiculous, but should not be it also protected?

Sympathy is also shown poor little liberal Denmark that can't quite believe its portrayal abroad.

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in a coalition with the People's party, which has called Danish Muslims "cancer cells" and "seeds of weeds." It is pondering a total ban on Muslim immigration. Just think: Keeping people out because of their religion, in western Europe, in 2006.

Was this a party or some of its members? Names and complete citation, please. How about Liberals being in coalitions with New Democrats listing Hezballah cheerleaders as MPs?

And also: ideology (including religion) is a valid reason to keep people away. Clearly one must be more selective here: while Islam (as any major religion) is not a valid reason to prevent people from entering, certain brands of it surely are.

Conclusion
If these arguments is all their author is capable to present, I am trully sorry for him. His logic follows the deduction rule Anything implies anything including its own negation But why TorStar publish all this crap?