February 2006
You are currently browsing the articles from Jay Currie written in the month of February 2006.
Why, for instance, should we be repeatedly told in news stories that all the cartoons insulted Muslims when most of them did not? Why should we be repeatedly told that the satirical ones insulted Islam’s Prophet, when what they satirize is obviously the use of the Prophet to justify terrorism? And now that we know the international furore was inspired, not by the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, but by fakes insinuated among them by delegations of Danish Muslims, why should we hold the Danish editor and cartoonists, to say nothing of all Denmark, responsible for anything?
It is to defeat such publicly-repeated lies, and to oppose public intimidation, that a publisher has the duty to show the original cartoons.
david warren via kate
Myself, I’m not going to be shopping at Chapters/Indigo anytime soon other than to stop by and ask for this weeks’ Western Standard.
Written by jay on February 15th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Uncategorized and media.
Mark Bourrie at Ottawa Watch looks to be on the receiving end of a Mr. K. slapsuit. He is going to need some help with legal costs. Here is the link to donate.
I write a lot about freedom of speech. Part of that freedom is the right to fight bogus libel suits filed to stifle debate. I wrote about this particular abuse here.
Now it is time to put up or shut up. Mark needs our help. As any blogger may find himself or herself at the wrong end of Mr. K’s propensity for legal action, it is critical that we reach into our PayPal pockets and give what we can.
For those of you just joining us Mark Bourrie wrote ” He was a key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal.” Mark suggests that his pronoun referred to Chuck Guite rather than Mr. K, however, Mr. K. is litigating the ambiguity suggesting that Mark’s words made Mr. K. a key actor. Actors have many roles and Mr. K’s was to write memos,
A memo tabled Wednesday made it clear Guite was recommended for the job by the office of Dave Dingwall, then federal public works minister. Warren Kinsella, who served as Dingwall’s chief of staff, wrote on Nov. 23, 1995 — less than a month after the referendum — that “recent experience” had shown the need to centralize federal ad strategy.
The same centralized approach should apply to public opinion polling and other communications programs, he said.
Public Works was the logical department to review past practices and put new procedures in place, Kinsella wrote.
“In my view Mr. J. C. Guite … should be assigned to carry out this review on a full-time basis,” he told Ran Quail, the deputy minister at Public Works.
“It is requested that he (Guite) be assigned to a position that will allow him to carry out these tasks.”
ctv
It was a stellar performance but it takes a rather guilty conscience to raise its description to suggest “The clear meaning of the Libelous Words is that Mr. Kinasella acted unethically and/or illegally.” Mark suggested no such thing and Mr. K knows it.
Great to see Greg Staples, Bob Tarantino, Kathy Shaidle, Daiman Penny and a host of other blogs refuse to let Mr. K get away with this sort of nastiness.
Welcome Instapunditeers…this is not about me so go visit Mark Bourrie then come on back for Canadian free speech in action.
What fun. Captains Quarters has chapter and verse on Kinsella from Gomery.
The matter died there. Mr. Quail decided that Mr. Kinsella’s memo was a mistake by an inexperienced political staffer who did not know better than to attempt to give direction to a senior public servant on how to organize his department. Mr. Dingwall testifies that he does not remember the incident, but assumes that he must have instructed Mr. Kinsella to write the memo.64 As to why he would have wanted Mr. Guité to be given important new responsibilities, the record is unclear.
gomery report, captains quarters
“Inexperienced political staffer”…nice. As Mr. K would say, really kicks ass.
Yesterday, lost in the shuffle, Antonia Zerbisias proposed that she act as Judge Judy as between Mark and Mr. K. This is a very, very good idea and the parties might want to think about taking her up on the offer.
The Canadian blogoshere is just developing its norms and guides to conduct. It would be an excellent precedent to have a dispute de-escalate and an even better one to have a neutral third party informally arbitrate as between the parties.
Over at the Zerb’s post offering to play Judge Judy, Mark Bourrie posts, “I’m game.” Ball’s in Warren’s court, so to speak.
Written by jay on February 15th, 2006 with 11 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Liberals and Uncategorized and media.
The press may have freedom in Western democracies, but with freedom comes responsibility. It is the responsibility of newspapers and other publications to balance the need of the public to know and be informed with the responsibility to prevent people from gratuitously insulting people of a certain faith. The press must always walk a line between being open and being tasteful.
the brandon sun
The editorialists at the Brandon Sun have summed up precisely what is wrong with Canadian media. “Being tasteful” trumps the public’s need to know and be informed.
OK. Got it.
Update: this just in from the PMO:
“Free speech is a right that all Canadians enjoy; Canadians also have the right to voice their opinion on the free speech of others. 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.”
pmo, press release, feb 14th, 2006 via email
Assuming that this says anything, and I am not entirely sure that it does, it seems to “regret publication”….Why? Since when is it the role of the Prime Minister to regret the publication of anything. Can we look forward to more “regrets”. What is the PMO critieria for publication regret.
Does the term “pander” have any meaning left to the CPC?? I mean other than a surefire way of winning less than a majority.
Written by jay on February 15th, 2006 with no comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Uncategorized and culture and media.
But Mohamed Elmasry, leader of the Canadian Islamic Congress, warned on Sunday that his organization will seek to have charges laid against Levant’s publication under Canada’s hate laws.
ctv
Exra must be delighted. Now he can wrap himself in the Charter and enjoy the pleasure of knowing that - should this ever come to Court - either way he will have underscored the looniness of Canadian hate crimes legislation. Here’s a handy synopsis:
Under Section 318, it is a criminal act to “advocate or promote genocide” - to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. As of April 29, 2004, when Bill C-250, put forward by NDP MP Svend Robinson, was given royal assent, “sexual orientation” was added to that list.
Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means. The same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.
cbc
318 is not applicable here, 319 may be. However, and here is the rub, making fun of a particular long dead religious figure is not the same as inciting hatred.
Essentially, assuming that Mohamed Elmasry can manage to convince the police and the Crown to proffer charges, 319 will run squarely into the freedom of expression provisions of the Charter. And, in the instant case, where Muslims all over the world are having hissy fits and demanding governmental action, it seems a perfectly legitimate exercise of a free press to show readers what the fuss is about. And there is no question at all that Ezra can rely on both the Charter and the saving provisions of 319 - after all it is true that these are the cartoons all the fuss is about.
The CTV article describes the wimpy reaction of much of the Canadian and North American press, “Most Canadian publications including The Globe and Mail have chosen not to print the cartoons, opting instead to describe the images.” Descriptions of existing images are a long way from actually reporting the news. Rather like saying that the Mona Lisa is a painting of a woman with an enigmatic smile.
Ezra is sticking to time honoured maxim that a picture is worth a thousand words. Too bad more publishers and editors in Canada did not have the same sense of the obligations of their profession. (But it certainly explains the cratering circulation and viewership of MSM - afterall, if they are not going to report the news people are going to go to the net where it is actually reported.)
Written by jay on February 14th, 2006 with 12 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Terror and law and media and tech.
If you want to live in a liberal society, you have to be willing to be offended. And these people are not willing to be offended. They don’t understand the nature of life in a modern society. They are in the West, as I always have said about them, but they are not of the West.
fourad ajami, the toronto star
Go read the whole thing.
Written by jay on February 13th, 2006 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Terror and culture.
I walk the free speech walk but not to the edge of a cliff. Not so two insane - but heroic guys in Paris yesterday.
One, in red and white, is (silently) wearing a sign with the Danish flag saying “Support Denmark, Support free speech”. Besides (silently) wearing a sign reading “Free Cartoonist” on it, the other, the founder of the BAF protest warrior-type organisation, is holding a (fake) severed hand, a pen among its fingers.
Voices start to ring out. “It’s provocation!” “You tread on 1.5 million Muslims!” “Connards!” “Rat faces!”
“Ignore them, they are idiots!” reply others as a crowd starts to press around. A rhetorical question rings out: “Would they be carrying out the same provocations in other types of demonstrations?!” (Actually, Monsieur, yes we would and yes we have.)
no pasaran.
And there is video.
If more people were willing to stand, silently, in the face of the Islamic protests against free speech I would feel less concern about the erosion of my culture. As it is, I am struck by the madness of two civilized people standing before the mob.
Interestingly, the French police did nothing to protect their right to bear witness:
What has happened is that a short blonde Frenchwoman has tugged on their sleeves and gently but firmly started pulling them away.
“I will show you my ID 10 meters from here” says the plainclothes cop. “They are going to lynch you!” she adds, as she leads us into another street.
no pasaran
While I realize that the French police chose discretion over valor, what we are going to have to be prepared to do is force the state to protect people who propose to exercise their rights. On both sides. A counter demonstration should not be hustled down a sidestreet. It should be protected from any illegal action on the part of the members of the main protest.
Again, if free speech means anything, it means being able to take your stand in the face of a potential mob and be able to count on the state to help you uphold your position.
Written by jay on February 13th, 2006 with 1 comment.
Read more articles on Terror and culture and media.
One of the world’s most popular parenting gurus is to warn that placing children younger than three in nurseries risks damaging their development.
Steve Biddulph, whose books have sold more than 4m copies worldwide, says that instead of subsidising nurseries, which do a “second-rate” job, the government should put in place policies to enable mothers to stay at home with their babies.
The advice signals a reversal of views for Biddulph, an Australian with more than 20 years’ experience as a therapist, whose previous bestsellers
include Raising Boys and Raising Girls.
In his new book Biddulph will admit he has changed his mind because of growing evidence of increased aggression, antisocial behaviour and other problems among children who have spent a large part of their infancy being cared for away from home.
He argues that such children may have problems developing close relationships later.
times of london
The principle difference between the Liberal’s childcare plan and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives allows for the possibility that mum might be the best childcare provider for very young children. The poor Liberals, needed to think of something else for the state to do, could not admit this might be the case.
Here’s why: the “hidden agenda” of the Liberal Party (and the NDP) has been to “empower” women to work outside the home. While this has been done in the name of feminism it has also had the consequence of allowing a rapid expansion of the workforce. It has also had the largely unntended consequence of reducing the number of hours children spend with their parents, particularily their mothers.
This was an experiment in child rearing without precedent and undertaken simultanously through most of the West. The hope was that children raised by stangers would have much the same outcomes as those raised by their mothers.
To no one’s great surprise the research - such as that cited by Biddulph - is rapidly accumulating suggesting that subcontracting childrearing does not work.
From a child development perspective this cannot come as much of a shock. In fact, development specialists have been split for a long time as to anyone other than mum caring for young children; but working mums were consoled with what turns out to have been rather bogus research suggeesting that the outcomes for daycare babies and kids raided by mum were, more or less, the same. It turns out they weren’t.
Poor, dumb, Paul Martin in full pander to the professional day care lobby, drank this kool aid and got onboard the whole jobs for the boys (well, girls, actually) national daycare bandwagon.
The altenative is simply beyond the capacity of the politically correct, 80’s feminist mindset which drive the Liberals and the NDP. Yup, it looks like it is better for children for mum to take a few years out of the workforce.
This has huge political, economic and social implications. The most significant of them being that if we want healthy, well developed kids, we are going to have to accept a shift of resources from taxpayers without children to taxpayers with children. Or, and this would be my preferred solution, the reduction of taxes across the board with a coresponding reduction in governmental activity.
In many ways creating a child friendly, family friendly society is the challenge Western governments face in the next few decades. Somehow, as societies, we have to get out birthrates back up to replacement rate or our culture will simply die out. The daycare driven, one and two child families which are stand issue for many in the West are not getting that job done. Thinking seriously about how to raise the birthrate, starting with giving stay at home mums support through three or four children, would be a start.
Written by jay on February 13th, 2006 with 16 comments.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Education.
MI5 must bear the brunt of the blame for it. Constitutionally, the Director General (DG) of MI5 has the power to determine who counts as a threat to British interests: the DG cannot be ordered by the Prime Minister to consider a particular group or individual a threat. During the 1990s, the then DG decided that Islamic fundamentalists plotting terrorism in London and other British cities were not a real threat to Britain. MI5 wound down its “international terrorism” desk, on the grounds that Islamic terrorists in Britain were considered a threat only to other countries - and it was no concern of ours if they exploded bombs in foreign cities.
The resulting lack of intelligence on the activities of Islamic radicals meant that there was insufficient evidence to bring prosecutions. When the police, acting independently, began to realise the alarming nature of what some of the fanatics, Abu Hamza included, were doing, the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that there was “no realistic chance of conviction”.
the telegraph
The only rule which a civilized country can have is that terrorism and terrorists will be rooted out and either arrested or deported as soon as they are found. England, apparently, could not figure that out and it is reaping the whirlwind.
Written by jay on February 12th, 2006 with 1 comment.
Read more articles on International and Terror.
Muslims in Toronto clogged a busy downtown street outside the Danish Consulate, carrying signs and chanting praise of Allah and Muhammad.
Speakers said the cartoons were the worst possible insult to Muslims and Canadians should understand why they are so offended and hurt.
“We want to include all our members and friends in Canada to be part of what we are feeling today,” one speaker told the crowd.
“To understand the hurt that we feel, to understand the injury that we feel.”
ctv
Oh grow up. There is no right not to be offended or saddened or hurt.
I might have a little more sympathy had I seen a little more by way of Canadian Muslim condemnation of 9/11 or 7/7 or ritual stonings or honour killings or the position of Afghani or Pakistani tribal women or the hanging of homosexuals.
Here is what a Catholic priest in Pakistan experienced after radical Islamist gunmen broke into his church and slaughtered gunmen killed 16 people in his church, including seven children:
Fr Patras said: “Manzoor said, ‘We are not ashamed of what we have done. You are all kafirs (non-believers). We are obliged to kill kafirs.
“Because America is killing Muslims in Afghanistan, we are killing Christians. Bush said this is a crusade. Crusade means war between Christians and Muslims. America is Christian, you are Christian, you are the same as America.’
“I said, ‘We are all children of God’. Manzoor replied, ‘No you are all kafirs’. I asked, ‘Are you satisfied with what you have done?’
He said, ‘Yes we are. We follow God’s will, which is to kill kafirs. Our consciences are clear. We have no guilt and our brothers are planning more attacks’. I had tears in my eyes when I heard him say this.”
the telegraph
I have read not a word of condemnation for these and the many other Islamist killings which have occured thoughout the world in the last few years.
Kafir killers meet cartoons: there is no moral equivilence here. There are barbarians who are prepared to slaughter people for their faith and there are people prepared to suggest this is wrong. Once again, I know which side I’m on.
Written by jay on February 12th, 2006 with 1 comment.
Read more articles on Canadian Politics and Terror and media.
No older articles
Newer articles »
