Calgary magazine to reprint cartoons

[CHIMO]

The Western Standard, a political magazine based in Calgary, will today reprint eight of the 12 Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed that have caused riots and controversy around the world, and one Canadian Muslim leader warns that hate-crime charges may follow.

Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, a former Reform and Canadian Alliance activist, calls the cartoons "innocuous" and accused Canada's "mainstream media," including The Globe and Mail, of failing to stand up for free speech for refusing to print the images.

"I was prepared to see the most outrageous, depraved, blasphemous cartoons," Mr. Levant said in an interview yesterday. "I was surprised by how tame they were."

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

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060213.wxcancartoon13/BNStory/National/home

[tuvor]

1. Their decision to publish isn't exactly timely, therefore not "news".

At this point, it amounts to little more than goading.

"Let's see what happens when we push their buttons, fellas!"

[daleo]

3. I agree, this is just stirring up trouble unnecessarily

I doubt whether Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan look forward to the cartoons being published by a Canadian news magazine, especially one that has links to the current Canadian government (via the Reform Party history).

[Canuckistanian]

22. Agreed, this is just provocation

As Mike malloy said, "Why poke that bear in the eye again?"

[Bragi]

2. Weekly Standard (Canada Ltd)

I found it odd when Alberta Report went down that the Calgary neocons actually derivately named their new publication after the US neocon flagship publication "The Weekly Standard".

Does anyone know if there is actual US money in "The Western Standard", or did they just pick this name as a tribute to the US publication?

- B

[Canadian Socialist]

4. Don't know about the US money

do know that there are 19 investors (from the oil patch) who wish to remain anonymous. And yes, the name was picked as a "tribute" to the US publication. BTW, Ezra Levant says he's doing this for freedom of expression. But, knowing him (and I do) he's doing this for publicity. Nothing more or less. He's a real drama queen.

[MrPrax]

5. Probably not...

Ezra Levant is a huge 'in your face' Zionist -- that must be part of the motiviation...to demonize Muslims and make them look 'unreasonable' and an enemy of western freedom...

That's the ONLY reason why He or Kristol are publishing them at this point...

[Monkeybumper]

18. Or could it be freedom of the press

Muslims do not need any help looking bad at this point .

[MrPrax]

21. Doubt it...

Ezra has been quite open about how this is 'news', but cartoons in response to this 'news' are not 'printable', and just 'hate', and have no place in the pantheon of Free Speech©.

Funny Ezra is the only one that thinks so...

[Bassic]

7. Well he's always had a big mouth

I remember when he was an advisor to Preston Manning, he used to make all kinds of crazy declaration. I remember him supporting a Yes vote in a referendum so that Canada could finaly "put an end to bilingualism and multiculturalism" and also setle it's business with the "other ethnic seperatists", the First Nations.

Sounds like a first class red-neck moron.

[glarius]

20. Ezra Levant was a member of the Reform party and is a real right winger.

I find him so obnoxious, I cant' stand to listen to him flap his big mouth.

[Manix]

6. just a cheap publicity stunt by a worthless right wing rag!

[V. Kid]

10. Clearly a PR stunt.

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. Rightwingers are LOVING this

it's like New Years for an alcoholic....the perfect excuse to drink to excess

For them it's the perfect excuse to bash Muslims.

I've noticed a lot of brand new posters all over this whole issue here.

[CHIMO]

9. Harper 'regrets' publication of Muslim caricatures; group warns of danger

Harper 'regrets' publication of Muslim caricatures; group warns of danger to troops
Last Updated Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:26:31 EST
CBC News

On the same day a Canadian Islamic group warned that reprinting cartoons of Muhammad could endanger Canadian troops overseas, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he regretted their publication.

"Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others," Harper said in a statement, his first comments on the controversy.

"I regret the publication of this material in several media outlets. While we understand this issue is divisive, our government wishes that people be respectful of the beliefs of others. I commend the Canadian Muslim community for voicing its opinion peacefully, respectfully and democratically."

Harper's comments come as the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations held a news conference in Ottawa a day after the Western Standard magazine reprinted some of the cartoons. At least three other Canadian publications had already printed one or more of the cartoons.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/14/muslim-canada060214.html

And the Minister in charge of spending for the military wants to have an open discussion in Parliament on what Canadians think about our role in Afghanistan.

So folks we can see where everything is going to end up.

[Bragi]

11. Where *does* this end up?

You wrote:

And the Minister in charge of spending for the military wants to have an open discussion in Parliament on what Canadians think about our role in Afghanistan.

So folks we can see where everything is going to end up.

I'm not sure where that ends up, actually.

One of the things the Liberals did was to masssively commit us to an aggressive role alongside the U.S in Afghanistan, with almost no public debate, or much critical media scrutiny.

So if this debate opens up, I'm not at all certain that most Canadians would end up supporting what we are doing there.

Which raises the question: If the neocons trigger this debate, what exactly is their goal? They know most Canadians would not be comfortable with what we're doing, if they understood our role. Are they wanting to polarize public opinion on this, maybe make it a wedge issue? If so, I think this is risky business for them.

On the other hand, the Liberals are already compromised on the issue, and the NDP hasn't exactly been keen to stake out an anti-war position on this deployment.

In the last Parliament, the NDP declined to use its influence, or any of its allocated opposition days, to force debate on this deployment.

During the recent election, Layton did say he wanted a debate on the deployment, and a halt to sending in new troops until there was a debate, but he didn't actually oppose the deployment.

He also, of course, called for more military spending in the last Liberal budget, and repeated this demand in the campaign.

So the NDP's credentials on this deployment aren't exactly clear, so maybe the neocons won't have tough sledding on this in the House if they bring it up for debate.

[MrPrax]

12. Excellent points all...

Yeah where was that debate...and where were the Dems on that one. I know when Svend was out and about, he had a very strong critique of the whole NATO alliance and that Canada should re-consider it's role.

It was that and the Arafat thing that dropped him like a hot potato...so yeah what is the Tory gain from opening debate? Widen the deployment? Expand to other countries?

Canada should definitely get out of Afghanistan and Haiti for that matter.

[Bragi]

14. Another possibility....

Maybe the conservatives motive is that since it's likely that we will take some serious casualties in Afghanistan sooner rather than later, it would be better for the governemnt when this happens if they could say they at least allowed a debate on this deployment in Parliament.

They could also use the debate to actually predict causalitesbefore they occur, and hence to innoculate the media a bit on the likelihood of this happening. This could minimize the shock when it does happen.

- B

[daleo]

13. Afghanistan could use a review

But I think the Conservatives want to backstop the U.S. in other adventures too.

[CHIMO]

16. Where Does It End Up?

Well look at Harper's statement. It doesn't mention anything about hate crime. It only asks or requests that we should respect religious diversity. It all should encompass free speech.(That part sounds quite like an echo from somewhere.)

So he has given the publisher an excuse when they appear in court. We have to have free speech, even the PM agrees with that.

There is not one iota of condemning the intent of the cartoons in his statement.

Expect that there will be much waving of flags and standing up to terrorists. It will play well in the USA and to the groups that want to prove they are real Americans. Expect it to lead to those that question the deployment to not being loyal. We have seen it played out south of the border.

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. They should print these instead.

Much less offensive, they get the same points across while being funnier. The Calvin & Hobbes one, I think, is actually brilliant.

[Bragi]

17. Actually...

I think they all have elements of brilliance. Cartoonists truly rock.

- B

[Monkeybumper]

19. Yes cartoonists do rock

That is why we should never let lunatic fringe religious groups dictate what cartoonists can illustrate.