"My feelings on the whole issue can be summed up in two words: Comedhimmi Central." from protein wisdom

As most of you know by now, Comedy Central censored last night's episode of "South Park," refusing to run an image of Mohammed -- evidently out of cultural sensitivity to those who Comedy Central executives fear might, I dunno...

Tracked on April 13, 2006 4:42 PM

MTV Mocks Jesus – Will Christians Riot? from Rhymes With Right
Muslims went on a rampage because of some relatively innocuous cartoons of the false prophet Muhammad. Claims were made that no one would ever accept such insults directed at Jesus. Well, guess what – MTV has engaged in blasphemy against... [Read More]

Tracked on April 13, 2006 9:37 PM

Quell suprize.

Wonder what Lenny Bruce would think?

So is this supposed to be something that people take offense to? What a comedy channel decides to show?

Todd, this is just an example of the left-leaning liberal-dominated pc-pandering mainstream media caving in to ridiculous demands made by extremists who would love nothing more than to see our way of life go the way of the dodo.

Grasshopper, sorry, I thought it was a comedy channel.

Sorry for my ignorance but, who or what is Comedy Central and do its decisions matter to the general public?

I think we should start saying to leftists:

"If you refuse to show images of Mohammed, then the terrorists win."

This is the sort of snivelling left-wing cowardice that only encourages the Jihadists to continue and terrorize the world. The wolves get excited when they smell fear.

And that's only the beginning.

And I fear that there may not be a latter-day Churchill to bump all the Chamberlains out of the way...

In a nutshell:

The Free World... or whatever happens should we do nothing to defend it from the enemies of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Choose your world.

Me too, Todd. I would also say that anyone very interested in seeing the Danish cartoons that started this whole thing in all likelihood would have seen them on the internet long before anyone on our side of the pond published them and then claimed bragging rights for doing so. Back to work...

Grasshopper, this is not a left/right issue. It is an issue of subversion of speach in the name of appeasment. Who are the great right-wing organizations that displayed them? Fox - nope, United Stated Govt - lamented the existence... Newspapers across Europe - in left leaning countries all, published them in an act of defiance of tyranny. I don't think that this splits down idealogical lines, I think it comes down to what are organizations and people are willing to put on the line. A pox on people of all political stripes that hid behind editorial privelege.
Zog - Who is Jollands Posten? It doesn't matter. I watch southpark from time to time becasue it has *no* sacred cows. But anytime the exposure of ideas is governed by threats of retribution, we all should care.

It's also another issue. Forbidding someone to make an image of Mohammed, IF accepted as a tenet of Islam (and there are lots of images in museums)..must apply only to Muslims.

What is extremely disturbing is that Muslims are saying that non-Muslims must follow Islamic rules!
That's like insisting that Muslims must go to mass on Christmas eve!

If we give into the Islamic demands, we are effectively saying that we submit to their religious rules.
Not to our civic rules - but - their religious rules.

Hi, Jeff. I agree that it's not a left/right issue. It does appear that opinions on the issue split roughly along those 'party' lines. Maybe that's unfortunate, as it adds fuel where it's hardly needed.

My thoughts on this (while not very well-developed) are that I wouldn't print the cartoons that we're discussing and I wouldn't print cartoons that are heretical to Christians either. I wouldn't print the former just to prove that I'm unafraid (or to assert my right to do so), and I wouldn't print the latter in an effort to shock and thus attract a larger audience. There's enough other funny stuff available, I reckon, especially in politics.

On the 'pansy' side again, to be honest I probably would be reluctant to print something that I think might place my offices of employment (and hence my staff) at risk. Maybe it's not my place to make that decision for folks that work for me, especially if we are to believe that those whom we might offend are extreme enough in their views to act upon them. I humbly recognize that I'm probably not at risk of being labelled a hero here...

Shame on Comedy Central, what a bunch of chickenshit cowards.

And shame on the rest of you for immediately blaming this on liberals. If I read into this it indicates that conservatives come to hasty ill-informed conclusions and have no sense of humour whatsoever.

How many conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer, there aren't any available to perform this task because they're all too busy screwing liberals.

But it's quite alright for Cowardly Central to show Jesus defacating on George Bush.

Clip

The Islamic victory wrt the image of Momo is only the beginning.

We should probably advise the left that if the terrorists start to threaten wholesale violence all over the place should we not suppress all mention of the existence of homosexuality and make it a social imperative for its practitioners to stay in the closet at all times (no more Will and Grace; no more "Queer Eye" Guys), then they have only themselves to blame for the violence. But then again, if they give in to terrorists' demands, then the terrorists will win again.

It's one hell of a dilemma for the left, isn't it?

Or next, in order to prevent another violent uprising, will we have to get rid of all alcoholic beverages, destroying our wineries and breweries just to keep from enraging the impositive, extreme Muslims?

Or will we be forced to require all Free World women to wear burqhas?

Will we all have to convert and become slaves of Allah in order to avoid having our heads chopped off?

Where will it end? Will it even end? How far do we have to bend over backwards for these fascists?

Perhaps these questions are irrelevant, considering the stated aims of the days-to-nuclear Ahmadinejad...

The Islamic world is doing NOTHING to alleviate our apprehensions. Quite the contrary... they only justify everyone's fears of them with their words and actions. Duh! Hello!

And the left thinks that Republicans and Conservatives are scary? Mon Dieu! Mein Gott! FFS!

The Media Cave-In is Complete

NRO’s media blog reports that Comedy Central really did censor the Mohammed image on last night’s episode of South Park: Comedy Central Censored Mohammed.

I just got off the phone with a Comedy Central spokesman. I asked him about last night’s episode of South Park in which, at a moment right before the prophet Mohammed was supposed to make a cameo, the words, “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network” appeared on the screen.

I asked him whether this truly was Comedy Central’s decision or whether this was just another gag (with South Park, you never know). He said:

They reflected it accurately. That was a Comedy Central decision.

Michelle Malkin has more. via LGF+

Comment:
I thought it very telling that at the end of the program (during the Zawahiri cartoon) they had an image of Jesus defecating on the President.
http://michellemalkin.com/

If an executive believes that publishing could bring violence against people or corporate assets, or lower profits, then the only possible choice is suppression. After the cowardly response of governments around the world, and the ineptitude and impotence of law enforcement, no senior manager could responsibly publish because they could not, at the very least, protect their people. Personal courage does not enter into a decision to put others at risk.

In light of it all, doesn't it make you mad and sick that leftists continue to demonize JudeoChristianity? JudeoChristians don't kill people for converting away. They don't blow themselves up in the middle of crowds. They don't fly loaded jetliners into large skyscrapers full of people. They don't gas minorities. Hell, they actually even keep their composure when moonbats march down Main Street naked, waving burning effigies of the President or Prime Minister and praising Bin Laden and Hitler and Stalin...

But wait, CS - which leftists demonize Judeo-Christianity?

Grasshopper, I hear what you are saying. I hope that I would have published them, but there is a risk calculation that is not trivial. The problem here is that once the threats were made, the original editorial merit of the cartoons ceased to matter. There can be no threat of violence made against those who would express an opinion, write a book, draw a picture. The argument can’t wait until there is an issue critical to humanity, because by then the battle is lost, this is a death of a thousand cuts. The Islamists in this case are classic bullies. Whip up a mob of anger to confront a few people/organizations that do not conform to their wishes. The only way to combat this is to give no ground anywhere. If the entire western world would have prominently displayed the cartoons in question, there would be a clear message sent that no group controls what is acceptable to say/think/write. I was much more ambivalent about this when Khomeini suborned the murder for hire of Rushdie. I regret that my thinking was a little fuzzy back then, thinking that the Islamists were just acting out of the pain of having their religion parodied. I think I now see things a little more clearly and I think by any tally the Islamists have won this round. Seriously, who will depict Mohammad in any context now? Peace in our time...

Duh... take your pick... all kinds, all the time. Haven't you ever noticed?

Billy B.Bytown - I wonder if you realize the implications of your words.
You are saying that if a decision-maker concludes that publishing (or saying, or filming, or discussing or..) X-content 'might' result in (1)violence against people;(2)or corporate assets; or (3)lower profits - then, 'the only possible choice is suppression'.

That means that all that a group has to do, is threaten you - and you'll instantly accede to their demands. So, if they insist that no women can work in your corporation unless they are wearing a veil (and they threaten violence), then, you'll insist that all women do this or lose their jobs.

If they insist that your restaurant may not serve sweet'n'sour pork, or they'll send out threats to customers - you'll stop serving that meal.

If they insist that your schools separate boys and girls - or, they'll bomb the school - you'll immediately comply with their demands.

That's called 'occupation'. Imagine - the Islamic world can easily conquer and occupy the west, can destroy democracy, can destroy freedom of thought and speech - all, just by threats. Imagine that.

Agreed, Jeff - it's bullying.

I guess my position here boils down to the classic compromise a lot of us make with our kids - you pick your fights.

Again, the left has made it a left/right issue. Freedom of speech, freedom to offend at one time was owned by the left. With political correctness they have left it behind. It is now freedom to offend their selected targets.

The nature of the right is to generally suffer in silence.
The nature of the left is to moan and whine at any perceived threat.

The ironic thing is that the left is the first target of the islamic fundamentalists. Shows the mentality of the left. Cattle. Awaiting the slaughter with wide open arms.
enough

Billy B,
Posting your comments on this blog upsets some people. You had better not say anything anymore as it is offensive.

Ain't censorship great?

Thanks.
enough

Hi, Enough.

Do you think that maybe you're oversimplifying on just a couple of points?

enough - I'm unsure of your point with regard to billyb.
The issue is not 'offense'. That's a cover-up by the Islamists. The issue is the rejection of questions, dissent, discussion, argument, analysis. In other words, the rejection of thought and an insistence on faith and obedience.

Muslims are saying that the West must not ask questions about 'why are you blowing up our commuter trains in the name of your religion'?
After all- those cartoons were doing precisely that; they were, using cartoon-imagery, pointing out the difference between FICTION (Islam is peaceful) and FACT (Muslims blow up buildings, trains, people, all in the name of their religion).

That disparity is legitimate grounds for the west to ask questions of Muslims. But, Muslims are replying - No, you may not question us. Such questions offend us.

You know, I find it far more offensive of them, to blow up people in buildings, trains, restaurants. And, I think that Muslims MUST be confronted, MUST be questioned, MUST be rebuked, MUST be denied. And, we must insist that both non-Muslims do this - AND Muslims. Muslims themselves, have to ask, and answer the disparity between fiction and fact.

Nothing to do with 'offense'..and everything to do with our rights to live.

Dhimmi up Boys! Dhimmi Up.

While our police and intelligence services are helpless to protect us, while political leaders like Peter MacKay speak out against freedom of speech, while Islamist murderers live among us, I cannot fault a decision to suppress. This is a new and extraordinary situation and I cannot criticize someone who decided not to put others at risk. Would I personally have the courage to risk my life for freedom of speech, let alone jeopardize others? I don't even use my name for these postings. Put your criticism where it belongs, on the terrorists and a leadership that lacks the will and broad public support to oppose them.

Billy B - what you are doing is retreating from responsibility.

You refuse to participate in the robust strength of your society. You hand over responsibility to 'the authorities'. But, the 'authorities' aren't and can't be, obviously, everywhere and everyone. Therefore, if someone comes to your office and says that unless all the women wear veils, they'll bomb your office - you'd cave in. If you are a book publisher, and someone says that 'if you publish X-work, we'll bomb you' - you'd give in. That means you are their slave, because you refuse to, yourself, participate in your community and stand up for its values.

Citizens, in my view, have an obligation to stand up for and support the values of their society. It's my view, of course, and you don't share it - but, I don't feel that it is right to do nothing..and wait until The Authorities do it for you. That's what happened in WWII.

And political leadership doesn't alone define morality. You and we do that, in our daily actions. That's called 'broad public support', where the citizens know that to maintain their freedoms, they must support and speak out and act out, in defense of those freedoms. Otherwise, with actions like yours, we will lose them - for us, and for our descendents. That is really 'putting others at risk'.

Sometimes, we must look beyond the immediate, and consider the long term effects of our actions. To hide our heads in the sand, to reject action, and allow our freedoms to vanish - will, in the long run, destroy our world for our children and grandchildren.

Et,
I agree with you.
Was BillyB being facetious? If so i apologise.
Still stays the same. If the cartoon is unacceptable to publish because it may cause violence, then the lefties have to also refrain from making comments tha may upset anyone. Logical progression.

But, as usual it does not apply to them. Only to others who offend the lefties.

Grasshopper,
Have to simplify it for the socialists among us. Not that it will do much good.
enough

"To hide our heads in the sand"

Wake up, ostriches
Islam's in an expansionary phase. In case you hadn't noticed.
Barbara Amiel

...As it turns out, depictions of Muhammad are not prohibited by the Koran. A statue of him stands in the U.S. Supreme Court building...

...Canada has a relatively small Muslim population. Moderate Muslims are probably the majority, but in a time of expansionism, the fringe determines the course. Young Muslim Internet sites in Canada extol the merits of fundamentalism, cite extremist clerics as role models. Chat rooms discuss the virtues of the Islamic state...

Let's all try a little experimjent then. I'm going to start censoring all pro-gay rights comments on this blog, and all comments from anyone who has openly decared themselves to be gay - out of fear that gay-bashers (who have certainly commited more crimes in this country than Islamists, if we are to believe the news) will target me, commentors like Ian and Todd, or others who support same sex marriage or other related issues.

It will be a clean and simple delete.

But, first, I'd like to put it to a vote. That vote is limited to only those of you who have expressed the opinion that the censorship of images of Mohammed is justified in a secular, democratic society.

So, vote. Do I censor all pro-gay comments and commentors (for their own safety), or do I not?

Your choice.

Enough is so tough...maybe he'll write CC a very sternly-worded email. We got your back.

I'm disappointed (if it was censored), but not that surprised...it's corporate media, not gov't censorship...their air time, so it's their call. Maybe they would have rather been beaten up for censoring their product they pay for, than airing images that might spark another bunch of childish rioting by Islamofacists around the globe.

It's crazy that a show can piss all over everyone but extremist Moslems, and in the end only the Muslims are happy. Although, I don't see us rioting when we are pissed. We live in this century.

It was hard not to agree with Cartman, because I can't stand Family Guy and talking babies,

Et,

"Citizens, in my view, have an obligation to stand up for and support the values of their society. "

This society that the left has constructed for Canada has taken away such responsibility. We only should do what the government tells us we should do. Being "victims" we are helpless to effect change ouselves, but need the help of the enlightened few.

Yes i may be anonymous on this blog. More so for the cyberstalkers, identity thieves etc. I stood up this past election. I went to rallies. I spoke my mind, I challenged the usual garbage I heard spoken. I donated money.

It starts small, but we have to speak up. This is what is so powerful about blogs. Instead of yelling at the TV, we can challenge the MSM and the tripe we are exposed to daily.
enough

Steve in BC,
Want me to go picket CC corporate office? Not gonna happen. Got a life, job, family etc.

Should I stay quiet? Should I make my concern known? Does CC and the executives know that people may be upset? How do they find out unless people tell them?

Back in the day, remember people boycott Shell because of apartheid? I still don't go to Shell. Habit mainly but they paid a price for their business practises.
enough

While the pro-censorship commentors conduct their voting (or choose not to vote at all, natch), may I interrupt for this little public service blog post:

KORAN UNCENSORED

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2006/04/koran-uncensored.html

I have found a few rather strong verses from a translation on what appears to be an Islamic website and posted them for all to see for themselves.

I only ask: don't shoot the messenger.

Jeff P. Thanks for the helpful respones (sarcasm).
Anyway I googled Comedy Central and now at least know what it is.

ET, your're a little hard on Billy B. If an individual wants to risk his/her personal safety, that's fine, but I don't think that's what he's talking about. You sound a little like a drunk in a bar shouting, "Don't take that crap, stand up to 'im", while standing close to the exit.

A lot of us (don't know if this includes you) are old enough, and therefore lacking responsibility for others, that we wouldn't be missed, but maybe Billy B doesn't fall into that classification.

You are really all wet when you say that the state bears no responsibility in this matter. The state has deprived citizens of the means to defend ourselves - much less their places of employment, but declines to offer its own power to protect us, and even goes so far (through mealy-mouthed twits like Peter MacKay) as to offer sympathy to the bad guys.

Yes, as a society, we should indeed stand up for freedom and democracy but, without leadership, who wants to be first to bell the cat and have employees, co-workers or innocent bus passengers blown up on his behalf.

The place to apply pressure is on our own national leadership, not on citizens at risk.

Cocking a snook at Islamists isn't a game. The Western Standard is being targeted only with an HRC complaint, but there are folks out there who don't make nice.

enough...

These companies bought air time during CC's capitulation to terrorist threats:

Axe Snake Peel

iPod + iTunes

NBA Ballers Phenom

Fun With Dick and Jane" DVD

Netscape internet service

Amp'd mobile

eXmark LazerZ lawn mowers

Dell

Toyota Camry

Scary Movie 4" DVD

Gametap

Go get'im warrior.

Kate, I vote for yes, censor all pro-gay comments on your blog. It should take you a minute a day to do so.

I am absolutely serious when I refuse to condemn anyone for not provoking murderers. These are people who would not scruple to butcher colleagues and family members along with those responsible for the decision. This is not an abstract exercise. Politicians and artists in Europe are living in hiding because others have paid with their lives. The Madrid and London bombings demonstrated clearly that murderers live among us, sheltered in their communities and institutions until they choose to kill. ET, calling violence down on my own head is my choice, but involving others is theirs.

zoq - I disagree with your conclusion.

You are stating that my assertion that all citizens must stand up for and support their freedoms - is made only because I'm 'standing next to an exit'. Apart from the fact that this isn't true, it's irrelevant. You are trying to divert my point by suggesting that only people with 'nothing to lose' are able to suggest this tactic. Again - not true, and it reduces ethics to expedience.

No matter our age, we are responsible - both for our immediate relatives, and, if we have none, for our society. I don't want to be trivial, but, 'No Man is an Island'.

And the egoism, the self-isolation, of saying that 'I can't fight for what is right..because others need me and might miss me' simply isn't a strong enough argument. After all, that situation is valid for the majority of people. Someone, somehow, will miss each and all of us. Does this mean that we must not fight for our freedom, because someone will miss us? Tell that to those boys who saved our freedoms in WWII. We miss them, and yet, we acknowledge their courage and ethics, yes, ethics, in fighting for that freedom.

If we refuse to confront a stated agenda to enslave us and deny us our freedoms, I think that our descendents, who by our actions will have a life of slavery, will miss our freedoms - even more than they miss us.

I didn't say that the state bears no responsibility to protect our freedoms. I am saying that the state is not a guardian, is not a parent. It cannot act as our bodyguard and be everywhere. We are not children. We cannot abrogate our responsibility onto some abstract notion of The State. We, every citizen, is The State. So, since the State is made up of us, each and everyone of us, we must show that we care about our freedoms and stand up for them. Otherwise, we will lose othem.

And, we cannot expect Mother State to do all the work while we remain silent, watching her do it all.

What do you mean, 'without leadership'. Act as a leader, yourself. Are you a child? Doesn't freedom mean something to you, or do you wait to be told what to do by someone else and only then, you act?

What's the Mother State supposed to do, in your view? You state that the 'place to apply pressure is the national state'. What do you want from them? Pressure to stop threats made by Muslims against authors, against journalists, against academics, against teachers, against individual citizens? By all means, but, we are the state, and we must tell it both that we want this, and, we must SHOW that we want this.

If you, yourself, will not stand up and, for example, refuse to have all your women employees wear the veil - and, 1,000 other companies all meekly do the same as you - then, what is the state supposed to do, when it sees that its citizens all ACCEPT this edict, and don't object to it????

Do you think that our own individual life is so valuable, that we should preserve it, and instead, sacrifice our freedom and its future in the life of others?

Billy b - then, for you, life is lived according to whoever shows the most 'might'. You aren't interested in truth, or justice, or ethics. You will act only if you feel safe. If you feel unsafe, you will ignore truth, justice, ethics, human rights. Everything. That's a choice, but, I think it's a sad choice - and, I'll have to say, that thank goodness many have rejected such an option.

Whoever bullies you, will win. You won't fight back. Whoever threatens you, will win. You won't fight back. You expect someone else to come in and do the fighting for you. If no-one comes, you still refuse to fight.

If someone says to you - Don't publish that article that says that the earth goes around the sun; if you do, we'll imprison you, you would back down.
If someone says to you - Don't write that article about germs causing disease when we know that it's evil thoughts that cause disease - you would back down.

You realize, of course, that science, which rests on freedom to dissent, would disappear under such a regime? And democracy, of course, would disappear? Is that the legacy you wish to leave?

ET So what are you, personally, prepared to do? Internet rhetoric doesn't cut it (no danger there).

To any would-be heroes out there in the blogosphere: Get a large sign saying something like "No more bombing" and peacefully picket a Canadian mosque. When you wake up in the ER you can take comfort in the fact that the nanny state will care for you, even if it was unable or unwilling to protect you, and will probably chastise you for being provocative.

Absolutely Kate. You should definetly censor all mentions of anything the least bit gay, just in case it might inflame those insane gay-bashers.

I mean come on, somebody could lose an eye!

Its pretty sad when only our comics & cartoonists stand up for freedom of the press. The MSM has betrayed its own principles.Maybe the Muslims are right. We are just Dhimmi. I applaud the cartoonists. There are a lot of Canuks on staff at these shows. Writers especialy.

No, Zoq, that's not a valid question - 'what are you prepared to do'?

The question has to be based around a specific instance.

For example, when Ontario was considering introducing Sharia, I wrote many letters against Sharia to the gov't and to the Muslim community, Those who didn't like it - tough. This is my country.

I've written and spoken about the nature of Islam as a dysfunctional tribalism and explain it in public lectures. And, in my own name. On blogs, I don't hide my email. I've written and debated with Muslims, but admittedly only moderate Muslims, for there is no debate, no dialogue possible with a fanatic.

I've refused to allow any ideology to dictate to my classes - and I mean any ideology (I'm a university prof)- and I've done that for years.

Your only suggestion was to picket a mosque. I don't picket anyone. For anything. I've always felt that pickets were not acts of debate but acts of non-debatable assertion. No possibility of discussion.

If I could do a film, I would. I don't have those skills. So, I use the skills I have - which is to write, to debate, to discuss, to argue - with non-Muslims and with Muslims.
Have I been threatened? I've certainly been told that I'm 'offending their sensibilities' - but I can out-argue that fallacy. So, that's my contribution.

I will put my head in the noose . Concerning the disturbing pictures of Jesus defecating on Bush & Bush on normal Americans, than each other.

I personally am a Christian in the C.S. Lewis mode. So the images did trouble me. The thing is, I believe it had a deeper significance.

Stepping of the ledge. I believe the artists wanted to make this statement:

We have just used the vilest portrayals of normal Americans. We show them as fools buffoons. Have them crap all over each other. Than we take the President & say he craps twice more on his own people. After this we subject your most honored & revered icons & do the same. We can use Jesus, & we can defile the American flag. None of this was blacked out. None censored by there network. Those peoples sensibilities meant nothing. But Muslim ones became paramount. We have become a conquered people. But an image of Mohammed was forbidden by you for us to show. This is how we have become. The final clips show real imams making threats.

South park called the whole of the American MSM, & certain groups if not individuals. As blind to the danger of being suborned by alien laws. Out of misguided ideology. Out of fear.

Probably wrong, but that’s how I see it.

To put it bluntly, there saying we have lost too fear already. We are under Dhimmitude as of now.

Cowards.

haha i can't believe how seriously people take things. Especially things on comedy central. I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but Comedy Central is the most sarcastic network around. I think the funniest thing is how little they even have to try these days.

ps. I like gays. I like gays

Billy: The problem with your view is that you believe that simply exercising free speech rights "provokes" murder. This is not sufficient provocation to kill in modern society. Modern ethics only permit you to kill someone else in self-defense or to defend a third party who were in iminent danger of immediate death at the hands of said party you killed.

Do you also then agree that the women killed by their male relatives in "honour killings" provoked their own murders? I'm thinking especially the women killed for leaving a man who beat them regularly.

I'm not elligble to vote in the experiment, because I've stood up for freedom of speech and advocated the Saskatoon Sheaf show a cartoon of Osama bin Laden sodomizing Mohammed. Face it, Osama's been using Mohammed as his bitch to gain influence in the world of followers who have no independent thoughts. If Osama thought being a martyr was such a good idea, he'd have strapped on an explosive belt long ago and wouldn't be hiding. You'd think young Muslims would have put that together by now.

But, to test the waters, I'm here, I'm queer, get over it. 'Cause if I'm not having sex with you or your wife, it's got nothing to do with you.

So Billy, please vote on whether my freedom of speech should be defended.

http://evan.whattheboat.com/WHAT/censored_by_cbc.png

Certainly the funniest part of the episode. It was rather disappointing that CC decided to censor the episode, but then they also censored Bart Simpson swearing. Sadly, censorship is more prevalent on American television than Canadian television.

Billy: The problem with your view is that you believe that simply exercising free speech rights "provokes" murder.
The problem, in my view and in reality, is that free speech does indeed provoke murder. As long as western society is under siege, I do not see what good it does for individuals to select themselves for a death lottery and even less to endanger others.

Do you also then agree that the women killed by their male relatives in "honour killings" provoked their own murders?
Yes, they did. They should not have died nor should their male relatives have killed them but their actions did lead to their deaths.

But, to test the waters, I'm here, I'm queer, get over it. 'Cause if I'm not having sex with you or your wife, it's got nothing to do with you. So Billy, please vote on whether my freedom of speech should be defended.

Yes, your freedom of speech and mine should be defended. But that is unlikely to happen soon: in this country, as far as I know, only the Western Standard and a university newspaper published the cartoons of death, so we know that the institutions that should be the most committed to open expression are the most cowardly; our foreign minister has more or less condemned free speech and those who exercise it (a stunning capitulation to mob violence); our country is deeply divided over our military presence in Afghanistan where we actually can confront and kill Islamist murderers. So, I do not wish to be hacked with a knife in the street like Theo van Gogh nor do I insist others run that risk. Did you not see journalists and political leaders question Ezra Levant's decision to publish? Did you not see book stores - book stores! - refuse to sell the Western Standard? Did you not see Ontario seriously consider Sharia law? No, no, if people are to sacrifice themselves, let them die for something more than the rotting husk of a society.

Muzzled by network, 'South Park' bites back

DAVID BAUDER

Associated Press

New York — Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the creators of South Park skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode.

The comedy — in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians — instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on U.S. President George W. Bush and the American flag.

In an elaborately constructed two-part episode of their Peabody Award-winning cartoon, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker intended to comment on the controversy created by a Danish newspaper's publishing of caricatures of Muhammad.
...

Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn't want to be identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

The network's decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.

Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: “In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision.” Its executives would not comment further.

As is often the case with Parker and Stone, they built South Park around the incident. In Wednesday's episode, the character Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored Family Guy even though it had an image of Muhammad.

“Either it's all OK, or none of it is,” Kyle said. “Do the right thing.”

The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Muhammad is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: “Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network.”

It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag.

A frequent South Park critic, William Donohue of the anti-defamation group Catholic League, called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored.

“The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central — that's their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not — it's Parker and Stone,” he said. “Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade.”

Parker and Stone did not immediately respond to a request through a spokesman for comment.

It's the second run-in over religion in a few months for the satirists. Comedy Central pulled a March rerun of a South Park episode that mocked Scientologists. Isaac Hayes, a Scientologist who voiced the Chef character on the show, resigned in protest over the episode.

South Park again got the last word last month with an episode where Chef was seemingly killed and mourned as a jolly guy whose brains were scrambled by the Super Adventure Club, which turns its members into pedophiles.

Only last week, South Park won broadcasting's prestigious Peabody. Awards director Horace Newcomb said at the time that by its offensiveness, the show “reminds us of the need for being tolerant.” +
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13252.12

Throwing the acid of Satire/Irony into

Mohammed/Allah's face is a maximum weapon to

destroy the theocracy of the Islamist terrorists; to destroy the human soul-killing curse of political correctness.

More, please... and faster. +

Isaac Hayes' Chef character given true South Park send-off--TCN APCP Story

NEW YORK (AP) - Isaac Hayes' Chef character had a true South Park send-off Wednesday night - seemingly killed off but mourned as a jolly old guy whose brains were scrambled by the Super Adventure Club.

The thinly disguised satire continued the show's feud with Scientologists in its 10th-season premiere on Comedy Central. The soul singer has voiced the Chef character on South Park since 1997 but left recently because of what he called the animated show's religious "intolerance and bigotry." Founders Matt Stone and Trey Parker said Hayes, a Scientologist, was angry South Park mocked the religion in an episode last November.

A rerun of that Scientology episode was mysteriously pulled off the air last week amid published reports actor Tom Cruise, another Scientologist, had used his clout to bury it. A Cruise spokesman denied that.
...
Chef repeatedly said he wanted to "make sweet love" to the South Park elementary school kids - it seems the Super Adventure Club turns its members into child-molesters.

The children try to rescue Chef but in the end he turns to head back to the Super Adventure Club - until he falls off a bridge onto rocks, is burned, stabbed and mauled by a mountain lion and bear.

Then he apparently dies.

"A lot of us don't agree with the choices the Chef has made in the last few days," one of the children eulogizes him at a funeral.

"Some of us feel hurt and confused that he seemed to turn his back on us. But we can't let the events of the past few weeks take away the memories of how Chef made us smile."

"We shouldn't be mad at Chef for leaving us," the eulogy concludes.

"We should be mad at that fruity little club for scrambling his brains." +
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13252.13

Certain comments in this thread raise an interesting issue. Particularly Billy B. Bytown's .

I've been toying with the idea of getting or making myself a Mohamed t-shirt and wearing it around town. Nothing tasteless, maybe one of the Jylends-Postens cartoons.

I rejected the notion for the following reason. In some places in the world, like Arizona, being confronted by angry defenders of the faith isn't dangerous. A semi-polite discussion will ensue, I'll assert my right to free speech, and that will be the end of it.

In Canada that's not what will happen. The angry defenders of the faith will not feel it neccessary to respect my right to free speech, nor will they feel constrained to non-violent protest at my t-shirt. In short, somebody will kick my ass at the very least, and possibly burn my house down.

Can any of you brave Lefties guess the difference between Arizona and Canada?

Hi JM
"Young Muslim Internet sites in Canada extol the merits of fundamentalism, cite extremist clerics as role models. Chat rooms discuss the virtues of the Islamic state..."

Do you have a link?

phantom what part of canada do u live in. Where i'm from(Sask), everyones pretty chill, especially the lefties. Obviously theres activists, etc. but not violent ones.

Billy B - our society is, as you call it, a 'rotting husk of a society' precisely because individuals refuse to stand up for its values. You refuse to stand up for its values. Therefore, you don't deserve those values.

Social values don't exist as abstract clouds; they are embedded in the actions and beliefs of real-life material individuals. If those real-life material individuals refuse to acknowledge them, and hide from protecting and promoting them - then...the society will dissolve into a 'rotting husk'.

You are responsible for that end. As you admit, you have capitulated to mob violence. Remember, 'mob might' is the easiest way of all to control people; it doesn't even require an ideology. People who are controlled by physical force (not ideological force) have rejected their essential human nature; their capacity to think. They have turned into animals, who are indeed, controlled by physical force.

As for your statement that the women are responsible for their relatives beating them to death - that's quite an extraordinary conclusions of yours. You haven't explained why you come to this conclusion. I think it would be helpful if you did. Blaming the victim is a common tactic of bullies, where they self-define themselves as deprived of reason and conscience by the behaviour of X (the woman). So, if a woman is raped, then, it is her fault, and she should be killed by her relatives to avenge family honour. Could you explain why you justify this? Is it her attractiveness? Or, was it the fact that she was raped because the Other Family wanted to humiliate Her Family? Or...??

Again, Billy b- the fact that you are now living in a civil society, is due to the courage of others who have fought for its values.

ET, do I believe that Muslim men should murder their women, or confine them or beat them or force them to wear certain clothing? No. Do such things happen? Yes. Do some Muslim women pay with their lives for choices you and I believe should be theirs? Yes. But where and how do I condone this? I said their actions led to their deaths, and they did. You introduce arguments I did not make so I do not refute them. As for my 'capitulation to mob violence', if I have indeed surrendered, I would stand in distinguised company - here in Canada alone, all of academia, journalism and politics, with perhaps a dozen inspiring exceptions. I have no confidence in the willingness of ability of our government or institutions to defend us - in fact, I firmly believe their policies, actions, inaction and ineptitude put us further at risk with every passing day. My original point was a simple one and I will state it again. I do not have the right to put others at risk.

Phantom:

I'd like to get one that simply has the text:

"I drew a Muhammed cartoon and all I got was this lousy fatwa."

I read some picketer had a sign with that on it and thought it was genius.

Billy B. ByTown - while you are concerned that through your "actions" you may put "others at risk", I can assure you that your advocacy of inaction is accomplishing this quite nicely on its own.

I unfortunately live in Ontario, too near Moronto to be able to assume my personal safety from unrestrained violence. Wearing a Mohamed t-shirt in Rexdale will get you a guaranteed smackdown, and possibly arrested.

That's the problem. Here's the cause of the problem, I quote Mr. Bytown's words from the comment above:

"I have no confidence in the willingness of ability of our government or institutions to defend us - in fact, I firmly believe their policies, actions, inaction and ineptitude put us further at risk with every passing day. My original point was a simple one and I will state it again. I do not have the right to put others at risk."

Mr. Bytown thinks Big Brother is supposed to keep him safe and stick up for him against the mean old Muslims. That is the problem.

Whatever happened to the responsibility to stick up for yourself? Well, let me tell you. Mr. Bytown is 100% correct in his assessment but its worse than that. The Canadian government and particulary here in Ontario, will not allow citizens to protect themselves or their property from attack.

In Arizona nobody will assault you for wearing the Mohamed t-shirt because A) they will probably go to jail for their unprovoked attack but mostly because B) they will only get to go to jail if they survive you shooting them.

Here in Ontario there's a good chance the cops will arrest YOU for wearing the t-shirt even after you get beat. Should you resist the beating and cause injury to your attacker, for sure you wil;l get arrested.

We might want to fix that, eh?

Has anyone noticed that movies and TV shows with actors and actresses that have been very vocal against Iraq, the cartoons etc. are bombing at the box office. Let's hope the latest Tom Cruise movie meets the same fate. Muslims riot, burn, behead and get offended. Christians use their pocketbook to retaliate. What is the latest on the Sheath, any new offensive cartoons or more resignations or apologies.

Speaking of censorship, this story has disheartened me:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/2006/04/13/ambrose-climate.html

Hey I think gays are okay until I think about them stuffing large objects into their colons on a regular basis, then I think ... Are they all insane? Why would anyone do this?

Just asking. I guess they are fairly normal otherwise.

There is still is a 'normal' isn't there? Just asking.

I don't think you should censor any pro gay comments unless there off topic Kate. Doing so, just makes Consevatives & Libertarians as despotic mentaly, as the pod people.

I by no means like the gay agenda, ( To say they don't have one, would be crazy.) nor there obbsesion with sex with a compulsion to define themselves by sexuality.Didn't Women struggle with that for a long time & still do, with its negative conutations? To my way of thinking , gay's are just another fringe group like Sado masicasts or wife swappers. Deviant but not crimminal.

As such they have the same rights as citizans & should be protected with free speech. All others as well. For repeat & violent crimminals ? SOL to you! You gave em away with fore knowledge , knowing the outcome if caught.

re yeah's comment: The reason the book launch was cancelled was because the scientist, an employee of Environment Canada, hadn't gone through the proper channels--there are protocols about these things-- and because it appeared that he was going to promote his book at The National Press Club based on his his position in this department. It would have given his fictional account of global warming--also a hot topic "debated" on this blog a few days ago--a credibility which perhaps was unwarranted, not to mention, a lot of people might have thought that this book had Environment Canada's official endorsement, which it obviously didn't.

I think Tushingham had a lot of nerve thinking he would launch his book on the coattails of Environment Canada--and I suspect his motives were less than honourable.

I'm with the government on this one. Rules are rules--and we can live better with them than without them.

South Park Censorship: A Matter of Fear

Several readers emailed copies of Comedy Central’s form letter explaining their decision to censor South Park, and just as with Borders Books we see an honest, open acknowledgment that the root cause of their decision is fear of the Religion of Peace™:

Dear Viewer,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the “South Park” episodes entitled “Cartoon Wars.” We appreciate your concerns about censorship and the destructive influence of outside groups on the media, entertainment industry and particularly Comedy Central.

To reiterate, as satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to make people laugh and perhaps, if we’re lucky, even make them think in the process.

Comedy Central’s belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events. + via LGF

Billy B
It's a pleasure to read your comments, with which I am in general agreement.
Could you elaborate on which proactive actions you think appropiate for implementation over the longer term (say 20-30yrs)?
Because some day (hopefully not too late) our day will (have to) come !!
That is to say: The standards of the western world will never be able to submit to this foreign ideology.
Will we be able to avoid catastrophic events ???
(I am thinking: Bush/Iran/Israel/Iraq/WW3)

What to do

The point was made above that individual physical retaliation against radical elements is pretty much out of the question. The laws will probably work swiftly and surely against someone caught up in this.

In Canada, the physical approach by radical elements is not likely to be a factor at the present time or probably the near future for the same reason.

Radical elements in Canada are resorting to using the legal system to make their points and gain ground as their numbers are increasing in Canada. The tipping point in the EU has apparently been reached - now, will Canada be next on the list?.

It is a no-brainer to think of provincial court decisions, supreme court decisions, the legal acts/frameworks that are now in place to know that so far - it seems to be working for them (the radical elements).

The majority populaton, or large united segements of it, really don't have much choice any more other than to somehow use the legal system to bring back some sense of balance to a society in which virtually an extreme political correctness ( I would argue it is now serious reverse disrimination) is virtually the norm.

This has been encouraged/mandated by the past Federal Liberal governments through their laws, regulations, funding practices, and institutions set up in and around
Crime/Citizenship/Immigration/Multicultural/Refugee/Human Rights areas.

Sadly, the Federal Acts passed and implimented pretty much with the express purpose of protecting the Francophone minority (2/3 of whom could really care less about protecting anything but unilingual French) are now being used by the radical minorities in the ROC. This while Quebec still remains insulated by such things as Law 101 and retaining considerable control over their own immigration into Quebec.

We are in serious trouble and the apparent inability to individually do much of anything (except perhaps massive protests) significant to bring about change is generating a lot of both fear and anger within individuals.

I know a hell of a lot of gay people and hetero people. I'd say the percentage of people who enjoy sexual stimulation up the rectum is almost equal in both groups - of the people who've told their interests to me.

I hear a lot more about people's sexual proclivities than most, because my wife owns and erotic emporium for women. The majority of customers are married straight couples. She sells a lot of harnesses and dills to the wives, at their husband's request and subsequent delight.

Unless you've worked the sales counter at such a shop, you'd probably have no idea how creative married heteros can get sexually.