That's why both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have condemned the latest cover of the New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
That's why both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have condemned the latest cover of the New Yorker

---

Hell, in Canada, The New Yorker would be up on charges before a "human rights commission" in less than ten seconds after the first cover came off the press.

ETA: Which is precisely the problem with having government bureaucrats determining what speech is “offensive” and what speech is “not offensive”—and then telling citizens and the media that “offensive” speech is verboten.

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Hell, in Canada, The New Yorker would be up on charges before a "human rights commission" in less than ten seconds after the first cover came off the press.

---

No it wouldn't.

And I have to tell you Sven, even though in Canada we regulate some forms of speech, I think we have a greater freedom of speech here. Because, I think, we have a greater respect for diversity of opinion in public discourse.

While it can be expected some opinions will lead to heated debate, there is little fear of anyone being beaten, incarcerated, or worse, merely for voicing an opinion.

For example, I have been openly atheist for years. Leads to some interesting discussion on the existence of God, Darwinism, and other ideas, but no one has ever threatened to harm me for my beliefs. In fact, just the opposite. I find people want to engage me in discussion.

However, google "atheist threatened" and in your country all sorts of links appear like this one:

quote:

---

Army Spc. Jeremy Hall was a Baptist before he served two tours of duty in Iraq, but in the course of his service he became an atheist and now says he no longer believes in anything. That, he alleges, led to discrimination against him in the military.

---

As well, I find that many people who purport to believe in unconditional freedom of speech, with important exceptions, are often really only interested in their own right to unimpeded offensive and often racist speech.

I am tired of the usual right wing whining about freedom of speech. It is the same right wingers who see no problem with silencing Islamic aid groups, even taking away the freedom of those who run them, by labeling them with the catch-all "terrorist".

And in your country your politicians just voted to remove your fourth amendment right to speak freely in private.

The arrogance is beginning to bug me.

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
No it wouldn't.

---

I wouldn’t be so sure of that, FM. Maclean’s and others in Canada have been pursued for similar “offenses”.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
And I have to tell you Sven, even though in Canada we regulate some forms of speech, I think we have a greater freedom of speech here. Because, I think, we have a greater respect for diversity of opinion in public discourse.

---

What does “respect for diversity of opinion” mean? It certainly doesn’t include political speech that is deemed “offensive”.

I wonder how an Islamic version of the “Piss Christ” artwork would fly in Canada? Not very far. The artist of a “Piss Mohamed” would find himself hotly pursued by the HRC jackals in less than a nanosecond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
While it can be expected some opinions will lead to heated debate, there is little fear of anyone being beaten, incarcerated, or worse, merely for voicing an opinion.

---

Let’s take that one-by-one:

”beaten”: In neither Canada nor America will the government “beat” you for your opinions. Are individuals going to do stupid things in response to speech they don’t like? Yes. The issue is: What is the government doing to oppress speech.

”incarcerated”: Please give me some examples (one will do, actually) where the American government has incarcerated someone for “offensive” speech.

”or worse”: Ditto.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I am tired of the usual right wing whining about freedom of speech.

---

It’s not just right-wingers who are concerned about this matter in Canada, although the right is certainly carrying much of the water. I think progressives who believe that speech that is “offensive” should banned or punished need to give their heads a good hard shake.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
As well, I find that many people who purport to believe in unconditional freedom of speech, with important exceptions, are often really only interested in their own right to unimpeded offensive and often racist speech.

---

Au contraire. The American Civil Liberties Union is apolitical (or about as apolitical as an organization can get). The unprincipled position is that taken by certain progressives who want to snuff out speech they find offensive.

As far as the atheist soldier goes, you are correct that it is merely an “allegation” at this point. I will be following that matter closely and if the soldier was, in fact, discriminated based on his beliefs (or, probably more accurately, lack thereof), I will want to see some action taken.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
And in your country your politicians just voted to remove your fourth amendment right to speak freely in private.

---

If I were a Canadian artist and I created a piece of work that consisted of immersing a figure representing Mohamed in a jar of pig urine (ala “Piss Christ”), what do you think would happen to me in Canada, viz., the “human rights” commissions?

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

I wouldn’t be so sure of that, FM. Maclean’s and others in Canada have been pursued for similar “offenses”.

---

quote:

---

What does “respect for diversity of opinion” mean? It certainly doesn’t include political speech that is deemed “offensive”.

---

What do you mean by political speech? The right to be truly offensive and to stereotype and demonize people?

quote:

---

I wonder how an Islamic version of the “Piss Christ” artwork would fly in Canada? Not very far. The artist of a “Piss Mohamed” would find himself hotly pursued by the HRC jackals in less than a nanosecond.

---

Even if government has not been, Canadians have traditionally been very tolerant of artists practicing legitimate art. It seems you know little about us. We debate art and its merits. We don't shoot people or blow things up.

quote:

---

”beaten”: In neither Canada nor America will the government “beat” you for your opinions. Are individuals going to do stupid things in response to speech they don’t like? Yes. The issue is: What is the government doing to oppress speech.

”incarcerated”: Please give me some examples (one will do, actually) where the American government has incarcerated someone for “offensive” speech.

”or worse”: Ditto.

---

Incarceration: "A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

According to the criminal complaint filed Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany. "
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/

That example took me ten seconds.

And of course in the US you have these: "A free speech zone is an area set aside for protesters, within which law enforcement supposedly will not interfere with them if they stay inside it, but may arrest or assail them if they venture out of it. It is often at a remote location from which the protesters need not be seen or heard by those attending the event being protested."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Free_speech_zone

The only time we see these is when the US president visits.

Worse: One name: Padilla. Let's recall he was a US citizen and his crime was talking big on the telephone.

quote:

---

It’s not just right-wingers who are concerned about this matter in Canada, although the right is certainly carrying much of the water. I think progressives who believe that speech that is “offensive” should banned or punished need to give their heads a good hard shake.

---

quote:

---

Au contraire. The American Civil Liberties Union is apolitical (or about as apolitical as an organization can get). The unprincipled position is that taken by certain progressives who want to snuff out speech they find offensive.

---

quote:

---

As far as the atheist soldier goes, you are correct that it is merely an “allegation” at this point. I will be following that matter closely and if the soldier was, in fact, discriminated based on his beliefs (or, probably more accurately, lack thereof), I will want to see some action taken.

---

[ 14 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

If I were a Canadian artist and I created a piece of work that consisted of immersing a figure representing Mohamed in a jar of pig urine (ala “Piss Christ”), what do you think would happen to me in Canada, viz., the “human rights” commissions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Even if government has not been, Canadians have traditionally been very tolerant of artists practicing legitimate art. It seems you know little about us. We debate art and its merits. We don't shoot people or blow things up.

---

Memo to FM: We’re talking about government suppression of speech, not whether Canadians are morally superior in the appreciation for art. If a Canadian artist created a “Piss Mohamed” piece of art in Canada, the artist...well, we all know what would happen to the artist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Incarceration: "A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

---

There was a tiny word you missed there, FM: “trespassing”.

If that lawyer was wearing that shirt on public property, zilch would have happened and you know it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
And the right has no problem silencing the speech of others.

---

And you’re eager to join them in that venture?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The ACLU is one example, and one of the few, that supports free speech regardless of political affiliation. And, not surprisingly, many of the right wing so-called defenders of free speech view the ACLU as an enemy to be attacked.

---

Of course they do. For those that attack the ACLU, it’s unprincipled. But, what’s so surprising to me is to see progressives throwing the civil liberty of free speech under the bus when it’s speech they don’t like. That’s also unprincipled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I'm not surprised you don't understand the term diversity. Diversity, as I'm using it, is a range of differing opinions on any subject matter.

---

Oh, I understand diversity of opinions. It’s people who want to suppress speech they don’t like who are the ones who don’t understand diversity of opinions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What do you mean by political speech? The right to be truly offensive and to stereotype and demonize people?

---

My point is that even political speech that is “offensive” is off-limits.

And finally:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Nothing. There would be much debate and accusations and defenses but in the end it is still art and artists always have been granted much leeway. In fact the threat to artists is and always have been from the right and social conservatives in particular.

---

That is UTTERLY LAUGHABLE, FM.

quote:

---

Memo to FM: We’re talking about government suppression of speech, not whether Canadians are morally superior in the appreciation for art. If a Canadian artist created a “Piss Mohamed” piece of art in Canada, the artist...well, we all know what would happen to the artist.

---

quote:

---

There was a tiny word you missed there, FM: “trespassing”.

---

quote:

---

And you’re eager to join them in that venture?

---

quote:

---

Of course they do. For those that attack the ACLU, it’s unprincipled. But, what’s so surprising to me is to see progressives throwing the civil liberty of free speech under the bus when it’s speech they don’t like. That’s also unprincipled.

---

quote:

---

I understand diversity of opinions. It’s people who want to suppress speech they don’t like who are the ones who don’t understand diversity of opinions.

---

quote:

---

My point is that even political speech that is “offensive” is off-limits.

---

quote:

---

That is UTTERLY LAUGHABLE, FM.

Let’s say, as an artist, I wanted to draw a cartoon of Mohamed having sex with a pig. What happens to me? I can guarantee you that I’d get hauled in front of some kangaroo “human rights” tribunal, found guilty, and punished.

---

Second, you are under the mistaken impression that muslims in Canada are a protected group. Thet are not. That is why hate mongers can get their drivel published in a national magazine.

Some on the left are overly protective of Muslims but that is because they are a vulnerable group where hate directed at them is socially acceptable and officially while it is frowned upon, it is with an eye turned away.

What do you think of Canada's other speech laws? For example, in Canada you can be prosecuted for denying the holocaust. Do you think Canadians should be allowed to deny the holocaust publicly and in schools?

Recently, a native leader was convicted and fined for saying Hitler should have finished of the Jews. Your usual right wing defenders of free speech abandoned that native leader. Will you openly defend his right to make that hateful statement?

Here is your opportunity.

The case of Zundel:

quote:

---

A well-known Holocaust denier, Zundel operated a Nazi propaganda publishing house from Canada and wrote for a website that espoused anti-Jewish sentiments and questioned whether six million Jews had died in the Holocaust.

The author of such works as The Hitler We Love and Why, Zundel had been held in solitary confinement for two years in a Toronto jail under a national security certificate before being deported.

In 2005, a Federal Court ruling that Zundel was a threat to national security because of his connection with white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups paved the way to his extradition.

---

I can assure, none of the right wingers whom you ally with yourself with in Canada will defend Zundel. That is because their defense of free speech is not principled but politically motivated. They demand the right to spread fear and hate of Islam in the interests of their ideology.

quote:

---

But anyone who says that art gets a pass must think cartoons aren't art.

---

I guess I should have made my point more clearly:

The New Yorker loves Obama - just read Hertzberg's laudatory article. They published this cover in an attempt to ridicule the ultra-right-wing slanderers. They thought that any rational person, after glancing at the caricature, would laugh off the slander.

Little did they count on the New Establishment Obama, who has joined the ranks of the defamers! So just as he had to condemn Rev. Wright (who thought he was helping Obama), he now has to blast his erstwhile "liberal" defenders from New York!

There is no left, there is no centre, there is only pandering to the lowest uncommon denominator.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

The irony is utterly delicious.

---

yummy

Satire, and it's sibling parody are quickly becoming lost arts.

for over a year Michelle and Barack Obama have had lies and exaggerations spread about them based on stereotypes, prejudice, fear, and racism; there are descriptions of non-existent videos about Michelle's non-existent "whitey" speeches .

It's about time someone addressed the unfounded allegations, put it out there for all to see the absurdity of the caricatures that keep on spreading.

That doesn't excuse the New Yorker. I don't like their liberal politics, and I don't share their support for Obama. I also think they exercised poor judgment in their obvious attempt to deflect the slanders about the Obamas. But to call their cartoon "racist" is to deprive the word of much meaning. It was obviously an attempt at irony, which didn't work well.

They should just go back to Obama's own methodology: "I am not a Muslim! Never have been! Never went to a Muslim school, not for one solitary second! I'm a practising Christian! I swear to God!!!!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
I should think

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
I accept that gratuitous insults are the coin of the realm here, but when you're done, maybe you could enlighten us as to how it is that saying you're not Muslim when you're not Muslim is a new form of racism?

And make it real simple for those of us whose thinking isn't up to speed with your own. Just some good old common sense, if you would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by reglafella:
...maybe you could enlighten us as to how it is that saying you're not Muslim when you're not Muslim is a new form of racism?

---

Naomi Klein did it as well, in the article I quoted here.

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

I find it kind of funny that you'd so strongly believe that he has to explain himself for no other reason than because some right-wing fool wants him at the end of puppet strings. Instead of being angry at the right for trying to smear him, you're angry at him for not going along with it and hopping-to the way you feel he should have.

quote:

---

Satire normally creates acute discomfort for those it is targeting, but this cover managed to wound only those who had already been wounded....

Hertzberg’s basic point, in keeping with the nervous Democratic centrism the magazine has often expounded in its thought pieces over the last decade or so, is that liberals and lefties are fools for getting all huffy over principle and actually threatening to vote third party or, my gawd, go Nader on us, because the point is to win. And for a Democrat, winning requires paying the occasional empty homage to the fear-based agenda of the Republican right, so get used to it, already. Doing so projects strength and Middle America finds it reassuring.

Well, maybe. But what an odd juxtaposition such a “pragmatic” viewpoint makes with the reckless satire of the cover, which — as an excellent analysis by Lee Siegel in the New York Times pointed out — isn’t actually satire at all: “In satire,” Siegel wrote, “absurdity achieves its rationality through moral perspective — or it remains simply incoherent or malign absurdity.”

---