• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Yosemite Sam named new ambassador to Muslimland

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by judge wopner
but i dotn think collectively there is the same level of hatred by the populace.

but i cant agree with the notoin that there is a collective hatred in the "west" against muslims that is stronger than muslims anti-western attitudes.
I should have been clearer... by larger 'axe', "and often weild, with awsome results", I was refering to the capacity for violence... so that when we swing our axe (or more accurately, our "leaders" swing it), nonchalantly, 500,000 Iraqi children die, whereas when they grind theirs, on a more popular level, we see some sparks fly - riots, small-scale violence
i think the ignorant folk from both sides dont hate eachother so much as they hate the "idea" of what the other represents. the problem is figuring out what each side actually represents.
I think, as do many others, that a lot of the anger at 'the West' is at our policies, not at the ideas we claim to represent (presumably in contrast with 'theirs'), such as freedom of speech, or liberalism (though perhaps moral decay - Britney Spears (who is condemned even among North American Liberals), thats a guess)
Anyway the point is these policies, on both sides, represent the rulers, not the people. The 'conflict between our societies' is between the rulers (and just as much between the rulers and their respective populations)
I think the 'cultural' conflict or incompatibility is really really really over-played
As is popular hatred of populations... that is, people generally probably dont hate other people so much constructs ("Western imperalism", "Islamic fundamentalism") those people are (usually unfairly) connected to... I think we're in agreement on that.......... of course, I wouldn't dare try to speak on behalf of the poor oppressed peoples of the world.. it is quite possible they actually hate you and me personally
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
First of all, how is one "racist" against a religion? Or are you yourself attributing one "race" to all muslims?
Shit - You got me! *collapses in tears as argument comes crumbling down*... okay sry
Anyway, Im using the term somewhat loosely, but still well within its conventional, recognised meaning, that I have a hard time believing you dont know or won't accept.. (besides, this particular use is common)
First of all, the idea of any "race" is ficticious enough
But second of all, it does not have to refer to some genetic group (and "races" defined along those lines are often basically invented culturally anyway)...
1)A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2)A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
...
4)Humans considered as a group.


Secondly, please substantiate that blanket statement with a bit of evidence other than sweeping generalizations. How is it all the rage, and where?
Its "all the rage" as in, 'it is popular'. Where? Here. Watch television. Go to the movies and play video-games (especially violent ones). Listen to the President's speeches.
And this is hardly the substantial substantiation youre asking for (if you're genuinely demanding that), but check out that video I linked to earlier.. it gives an idea of what Im referring to, not considerable substantiation of it, but I doubt you'd find the idea doubtful enough to actually demand studies on or arguments about racist representations in our culture, of which scores exist
Thirdly, why are you not drawing any distinctions between the experiences of muslims in different western nations? Some would argue that the integration of muslims into, say, French society has not gone as smoothly as their integration into Canadian society for example. Or are we in Canada also collectively guilty of this "violent racist hatred" you keep going back to?
"Why" aren't I? Uh, thats kind of a different side of the issue, different question I suppose. Anyway I could have sworn I did say earlier that its interesting there isnt violent reaction here, a place known to be more tolerant, respectful, multicultural, etc... Cant find the post, maybe I didnt end up posting it
Atanyrate I agree with you, and I cant explain why it was absent, or why it should have been in that particular post in the first place, for that matter.
Also, what Ive said earlier in this thread is specifically that we dont have lots of political rage/anger (or "angst") here (at least not directed outwordly)... of course that depends on how you look at things though..... for example the contemporary trend of workplace and schoolyard massacres, "rage murders"... clearly political (often explicitly so), but again, we'd rather attribute them to "craaaaazy!!!" "freaks" and "psychos"..... irrationality, mysterious insane savagery! That way we can pretend theres nothing to understand about them (such as, 'why do they (in this case, our own workers and children) hate us'), no matter how obvious it is, or important and valuable to understand

Anyway back to the Intl. scene, if what youre talking about is us provoking others' anger, Canada is deeply integrated into UKUSA policy... we militarily enforced those sanctions on Iraq for instance, and directly participated in bombing the shit out of them the first time around. But I dont believe that was motivated by Canadians' racist anger

Just not sure which you meant by "guilty of"
And finally, while the policies of certain Western governments can certainly be construed as being violent and aggressive towards certain muslim/Arab nations, do you feel that those policies are always an accurate reflection of the populace in said Western nations?
I take it you mean reflection of the will of said Western populations... In that sense, I think the policies are almost never reflections/expressions of their will, and are very often contrary to it
If they reflect anything of 'their' populations, its only a passive (largely ignorant) assent, very often, normally, acheived through elaborate deception

Originally posted by judge wopner
i think at differnt levels and in differnt regions of the world there is definite oppression. but very often its at the hands of western and non-wester powers alike. hence the reason i find it racially or ethnocentrically bothersome that people fail to see the diversity within the muslim world itself and the wide aray of opinions coming from within that do not fit the proto-typical "usa/jews bad" model.
Nor do they fit the "Muslim = religious fanatic; terrorist" and "West/U.S. = awsome nobility; just power" models that clearly dominant in scale and influence over the model that sees global political hegemony critically
Yes of course the oppression varies. And yes it is "at the hands of western and non-western powers alike".
But, having acknowledged that, what does one make of the fact that "western power", and the US's in particular in this age, is quite simply and apparently the greatest by far (and therefore most influential and responsible in general - and if you look at its expression specifically, in terms of the particular real world exercise of power, that fits what you would generally expect. And, despite the perhaps unusual composition of debate here on Tribe (obviously a demographic tending to be relatively progressive socially/politically) that is overwhelmingly not seriously acknowledged or discussed in our mainstream and elite (educated) cultures.
 

Vincent Vega

TRIBE Member
^ I still can't figure out if you're misspelling "leper" or "lemur" :)


Deafplayer, thanks for your clarifications on those points. Nicely said.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
Now that the western standard has chosen to publish the controversial cartoons, and the CIAR has announced it will seek charges under the hate speech laws - it will be interesting to see how the courts balance ss318-319 of the laws with s,.2(b) of the Charter.


Personally, I don't think charges will stand up, and it won't come down to a balancing act of the criminal provision with the constitutional right - I don't think a court, especially an Alberta court, will find that the cartoon wilfully promotes hatred or incites hatred - the Mohammed turban cartoon has several interpretations, one of which being that violent extremists are hijacking the religion.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
The limits to free speech

Cartoon wars
Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition

Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West

AFP“I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.†That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable†to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong.

Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.

No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wickedâ€, on charges of stirring racial hatred.

Drawing the line
In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them.

Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorshipâ€â€”though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocationâ€.

Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case.

In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments.

It's good to talk
It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations?

No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
lol @ the Economist

as if "shutting up the press" doesnt happen on a daily basis

and as if denouncing racist insults equates shutting up the press


" People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. "

Oh the irony...
 

basilisk

TRIBE Member
Re: An American Indian's View of the Cartoons

Originally posted by man_slut
"directly and deliberately stirring up hatred against Jewish people and encouraging murder of those he referred to as non-believers." Certainly the same could be said of the cartoonist.
What is this nonsense? The original cartoons are pretty goofy and lame and often aren't really saying much of anything at all. They're hardly inciting hatred or encouraging murder.
 

dig this

TRIBE Member
I think everyone saw this coming:

Iran renames Danish pastries
Feb. 16, 2006. 12:50 PM
ASSOCIATED PRESS


TEHRAN — Iranians love Danish pastries, but now when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they have to ask for ``Roses of the Prophet Muhammad."

Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for Danish pastries today after the confectioners union ordered the name change in retaliation for cartoons of Islam's revered Prophet first published in a Danish newspaper.

The move was reminiscent of a decision by the US House of Representatives in 2004 to rename French fries "freedom fries" after France refused to back the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"Given the insults by Danish newspapers against the prophet, as of now the name of Danish pastries will give way to Rose of Mohammad' pastries," the confectioners union said in its order.

"This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam," said Ahmad Mahmoudi, a cake-shop owner in northern Tehran.

One of Tehran's most popular bakeries, named Danish Patries, covered up the word Danish on its sign with a black banner emblazoned Oh Hussein, a reference to a martyred saint of Shiite Islam. The banner is a traditional sign of mourning.

The shop owner refused to speak, reluctant to be drawn into discussion over the issue.

In Zartosht street in central Tehran, cake shop owner Mahdi Pedari didn't cover up the words "Danish pastries" on his menu, but put the new name next to it.

"I did so just to inform my customers that Rose of Mohammad is the new name for Danish pastries," he said.

Some customers took immediately to the new name. But others asked for "roses of Muhammad" — "gul-e-muhammadi" in Farsi — with a laugh or even with sarcasm, apparently unenthused about the new form of protest.

"I just want the sweet pastries. I have nothing to do with the name," housewife Zohreh Masoumi told the man at the counter in one shop.

Iranians are big sweets eaters, often buying candies and pastries to bring to parties. While there are many types of Iranian-style sweets, Danish pastries — flaky pastry with fruit or chocolate between the layers — are extremely popular.

The pastries are domestically baked, not imported. Iran has cut all commercial ties with Denmark.

The cartoons, first published in Denmark in September then reprinted by other western newspapers over the last month as a support for freedom of expression — have sparked sometimes violent protests in Iran as well as demonstrations across the Islamic world, where they were seen as an insult to the Prophet.
from the Star
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by dig this
I think everyone saw this coming:



from the Star
^^ too funny. Use the Prophet's image in a cartoon - blasphemy. Equate the Prophet with a pastry - no problem.

what next? rename Danish Terriers to Roses of Mohammad Terriers?
 

derek

TRIBE Member
no.no. the danish is replaced by rose. muhammad's the baker.

i'll have the cheese rose of muhammad, please.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by derek
no.no. the danish is replaced by rose. muhammad's the baker.

i'll have the cheese rose of muhammad, please.
good choice - pairs nicely with the Venti non-fat soy Allah
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
bounty

Pakistani cleric offers bounty to kill cartoonist
CTV.ca News Staff

A leading Pakistani cleric has offered a 1.5 million rupee reward and a car to anyone who kills the cartoonist who drew Prophet Muhammad, reports say.

Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the historic Mohabat Khan mosque in Peshawar, announced he would give a 1.5 million rupee ($25,000 US) reward and a car for killing the cartoonist of the prophet pictures that appeared first in a Danish newspaper, The Associated Press reported.

"This is an unanimous decision of by all imams of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize," Qureshi was quoted as saying by AP.

Qureshi also said a local jewellers' association would hand over $1 million US, although no representative of the association was available to confirm it had made the offer, AP reported.

More arrests

Meanwhile, another Islamic leader is under house arrest and hundreds of protesters have been detained in Pakistan amid fears of more violent riots against publication of the cartoons, which satirize the Prophet Muhammad.

Thousands of security forces were deployed across the country to prevent unrest and police were ordered to restrict the movements of all religious leaders who might lead more violent rallies.

A senior police official in the eastern city of Lahore told The Associated Press that around 125 protesters had been detained for violating a ban on rallies.

In Multan, a city in the Punjab province, police swooped on protesters who had gathered Friday morning at a traffic circle, calling themselves "slaves of the prophet" and trampling on a Danish flag, Sharif Zafar, a police official, told AP.

Protesters shouted "Death to Musharraf!" as they were bundled into two police buses, referring to Pakistan's leader, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

At least five people died in Pakistan and Western businesses were burned after protests against the cartoons turned violent this week.

The cartoons, first published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September and reprinted in several European countries last month, have angered Muslims worldwide.

Islamic tradition explicitly prohibits any depiction of Allah and the Prophet.

More protests

Meanwhile, in Karachi Friday, police fired tear gas and swung batons to disperse about 2,000 protesters, many wielding sticks, who blocked the main highway into the southern city, said Alim Jafari, a Karachi police official. The road was cleared and some 30 protesters were detained, he said.

And in Hong Kong, thousands of Muslims, mostly Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians and Sri Lankans living in the territory, angrily chanted slogans as they marched from a downtown mosque to the local office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

"Don't play with our religion," read a placard held up by a protester. "No double standards. We want justice!" read another.

More anti-cartoon protests took place in other Pakistani cities Friday, including Rawalpindi, Quetta and Peshawar -- the northwestern city ravaged by riots on Wednesday.

Police were guarding multinational businesses and government buildings, witnesses told AP.

Some reports say many of the businesses attacked in Pakistan have nothing to do with the cartoons and the demonstrations have been more of a show of strength by the country's hardline Islamic parties.
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
30 churches burned to the ground and 50 people killed in Nigeria in a fall out from the cartoon protests. Lovely.
 

Gizmo

TRIBE Member
Nigeria has religious tensions in that area almost daily, it wouldn't be accurate to pin this latest unfortunate occurence as purely a fall out from the cartoon scenario.
 

deevah

TRIBE Member
U of T gets into the act

Jesus and Mohammed Smooching: Gay 'Tolerance' Cartoon Published by University of Toronto

By John-Henry Westen

TORONTO, February 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The University of Toronto's Victoria College student newspaper The Strand, has used the controversy surrounding the cartoons ridiculing Islam to bash Christianity and Islam simultaneously. Accompanying an article on the cartoon controversy, the paper published a cartoon of its own depicting Jesus smooching with Mohammed in the "Tolerance Tunnel".

"The cartoon is a sort of Canadian statement on religious tolerance," Nick Ragaz, managing editor of The Strand, the student newspaper of Victoria University at U of T told the Toronto Star. "This is not an act of hate," he said. "It's controversial, yes, but it's no attack," said Ragaz.

The University is backing the controversial piece. Paul Gooch, president of Victoria University said "The editorial in this issue of The Strand provokes and invites discussion, not intolerance." The Strand editorial cartoon, "however offensive to some members of our community, could not be characterized as a violation of the Human Rights Code, the Criminal Code, or the applicable University policies at Vic or U of T," the Star reports Gooch having wriiten.

However, the University of Toronto tends to be selective when it comes to freedom of speech.

In 2004, a pro-life club at the university wanted to present a pictorial display which graphically compared abortion to historically recognized genocides. The University of Toronto obstructed the free speech rights of its pro-life students. The university insisted that the display be erected in an open-sided tent with most of the posters facing inwards, making it virtually impossible for the signs to be seen from outside the tent. (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04032405.html )

The University seems to be particularly sensitive when it comes to homosexuality. When internationally renowned Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft delivered a talk at the university in 2003 which expounded Catholic teaching on homosexuality, the Student administrative council passed a resolution to declare the talk as hate and demanded an official hate-speech investigation. (coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/030214a.html )

Finally, the university has been openly discriminating in hiring practices against those not sharing its left-leaning ideology. In 1999, an ad for a tenure-track professorship at the University of Toronto appeared in the August bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers saying that only candidates with a "feminist and anti-racist perspective" need apply. At the time, University of Toronto Professor Thomas Pangle, said that the ad "makes explicit what I had thought was usually only implicit, namely, that ideological conformity was the chief prerequisite for such a position at our university." (coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/oct/99102205.html )


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022011.html

sorry i couldn't find the article that was posted in one w/ the cdn newspapers
 

Big Harv

TRIBE Member
deevah said:
Jesus and Mohammed Smooching: Gay 'Tolerance' Cartoon Published by University of Toronto

By John-Henry Westen

TORONTO, February 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The University of Toronto's Victoria College student newspaper The Strand, has used the controversy surrounding the cartoons ridiculing Islam to bash Christianity and Islam simultaneously. Accompanying an article on the cartoon controversy, the paper published a cartoon of its own depicting Jesus smooching with Mohammed in the "Tolerance Tunnel".

"The cartoon is a sort of Canadian statement on religious tolerance," Nick Ragaz, managing editor of The Strand, the student newspaper of Victoria University at U of T told the Toronto Star. "This is not an act of hate," he said. "It's controversial, yes, but it's no attack," said Ragaz.

The University is backing the controversial piece. Paul Gooch, president of Victoria University said "The editorial in this issue of The Strand provokes and invites discussion, not intolerance." The Strand editorial cartoon, "however offensive to some members of our community, could not be characterized as a violation of the Human Rights Code, the Criminal Code, or the applicable University policies at Vic or U of T," the Star reports Gooch having wriiten.

However, the University of Toronto tends to be selective when it comes to freedom of speech.

In 2004, a pro-life club at the university wanted to present a pictorial display which graphically compared abortion to historically recognized genocides. The University of Toronto obstructed the free speech rights of its pro-life students. The university insisted that the display be erected in an open-sided tent with most of the posters facing inwards, making it virtually impossible for the signs to be seen from outside the tent. (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/mar/04032405.html )

The University seems to be particularly sensitive when it comes to homosexuality. When internationally renowned Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft delivered a talk at the university in 2003 which expounded Catholic teaching on homosexuality, the Student administrative council passed a resolution to declare the talk as hate and demanded an official hate-speech investigation. (coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/030214a.html )

Finally, the university has been openly discriminating in hiring practices against those not sharing its left-leaning ideology. In 1999, an ad for a tenure-track professorship at the University of Toronto appeared in the August bulletin of the Canadian Association of University Teachers saying that only candidates with a "feminist and anti-racist perspective" need apply. At the time, University of Toronto Professor Thomas Pangle, said that the ad "makes explicit what I had thought was usually only implicit, namely, that ideological conformity was the chief prerequisite for such a position at our university." (coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/oct/99102205.html )


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06022011.html

sorry i couldn't find the article that was posted in one w/ the cdn newspapers
The article doesn't mention that U of T's Student Council was opposed to the cartoon and lobbied to have the papers depicting the cartoon removed from campus.

I can imagine what would happen if one of the student newspapers tried that at York.
 

~atp~

TRIBE Member
I also like how that article basically (inadvertently) stated that right-wingers are racist, sexist or both.
 

Colm

TRIBE Member
~atp~ said:
I also like how that article basically (inadvertently) stated that right-wingers are racist, sexist or both.
The point is the inconsistency in the University's understanding of free speech.
 

judge wopner

TRIBE Member
deevah said:
"The editorial in this issue of The Strand provokes and invites discussion, not intolerance." The Strand editorial cartoon, "however offensive to some members of our community, could not be characterized as a violation of the Human Rights Code, the Criminal Code, or the applicable University policies at Vic or U of T," the Star reports Gooch having wriiten.
ha ha ha!! what tom foolery.

sounds like they did more work on their press release than they did on the actual cartoon. what bullshit, if you want to be edgy and publish a cartoon that knowingly is an affront to 2 major religions, then have the balls say so, instead of dressing it up as something it is not.
 
Top