The Zerb Begins to get it
Snark aside, I think it is interesting and wonderful to watch a good mind change. I have just about no time for Antonia Zerbisias’ politics; but I am convinced they come from a caring, if misguided, heart. Watching her get irritated with the right end of the blogosphere. Backs off a bit here . Dises Ezra here. Admits in her comments that she is more than a little perplexed with the issue here. (While asserting without a shred of proof that there was a hidden agenda.)
And just for the record, note that I have never really come down hard on side or the other on this one because, to be honest, it is not as simple as too many make it out to be. I am still having trouble with it.Then slags Ezra some more here. But does notice that there are cracks appearing in the Annex mentality of the Canadian media.My main problem has been with people who posted the cartoons ostendibly to protect freedom of expression when I suspect that there was another agenda at play.
the zerb
All of which lead to this today:
The more I have been thinking about this—and believe me, I have thought (and argued) about this at length—the more inclined I am to believe that the media should have run at least one of the cartoons. A few were innocuous enough. The ones that paint all 1.3 billion followers of Islam as terrorists—or which portray the Prophet Mohammad as a suicide bomber—were totally out of line and, to my mind, border on hate. That’s why, two weeks ago, I objected to the right-wing blogburst on this. Most of it was about stoking the so-called ‘’war on terror,’’ and not so much about freedom of expression.She then spoils it by kicking the responsibility upstairs:
the zerb
That said, it would appear that a majority of Canadian journalists believe that our media should have published them. But then, we don’t run the corporations that control the presses and airwaves, do we?
the zerb, supra.
And alluded to the Atkinson Principles which govern The Star’s day to day editing practice.
Now, call me mean but I could not help but point out what Joseph Atkinson (PBUH) had this to say about what he saw as the role of the press:
On his death, Atkinson was so determined these principles be maintained that he bequeathed all his shares to the charitable foundation that bears his name. He wanted to be certain that the Star would be run by those “familiar with the doctrines and beliefs which I have promoted in the past” and that publication of The Star would “be conducted for the benefit of the public in the continued frank and full dissemination of news and opinions” and in such a manner as to preserve its role as a great “metropolitan newspaper.”
the star
Antonia has been caught in the vise between her heartfelt desire to be kind and the essential commitment of a free press to publish the news….all the news. And to her great credit she has changed her mind.
Update: Noted thread hijacker and all round moonbat Robert McClelland asks in comments what my “defence of David Irving” might be…I can’t do better than Andrew Sullivan:
I cannot express enough my contempt for the sniveling neo-Nazi, David Irving. That he has such an obviously first-rate mind makes his bigotry all the more repulsive. But … imprisoning someone for their beliefs, however vile, is a violation of basic Western freedoms. We cannot lecture the Muslim world on freedom of speech, while criminalizing it in the West.
andrewsullivan
Where’s your post defending David Irving’s freedom of speech? Where’s the outrage over that government censorship?
Like anyone else with a bit of exposure to European history I cannot imagine how Irving came to his Holocaust denying position. But should he go to prison for it? Of course not. What can and should happen in cases like Irving’s is that he is allowed to speak and write and the rest of the world is allowed to point out the absurdity of his position. The rest of the world is also allowed to shun him.
I didn’t ask you if you though he should go to jail, I asked you where your defense of him is. Or do you only defend the freedom of speech of people who offend Muslims?
Strangely enough, appalling as Irving’s revisionism is, there aren’t and weren’t millions of people demanding his death or burning embassies in reaction to it.
D’you think that the lack of that comparable angry mob might make just a bit of difference in weighing whose freedom of speech is more strenuously in need of defense, Robbo? Or does your commitment to following the issue only go deep enough to make casual implications of racism?
Robert, you really need to practice that reading thing: “What can and should happen in cases like Irving’s is that he is allowed to speak and write and the rest of the world is allowed to point out the absurdity of his position.” That’s my defence of Irvings right to free speech. What he has said admits of no defence.
So you only defend Irving when it’s hidden away in the comments of a post and isn’t likely to be seen by more than a few people. But when it comes to Muslims, you shriek your outrage from the highest mountaintop for all to see because you have a mob backing you up.
The impressive thing about you Robert is that not only to you choose to ignore the point of the original post you also posted your most recent bit of idiocy after I posted the update quote from Sully on the main post.
“...because you have a mob backing you up.”
Yes – and on a global scale, a mob threatening to torch his belongings, calling for his beheading, and attacking the property of the government(s) of which some of your “mob” are citizens. On a more local (National) scale, a mob threatening legal action and attempting recourse to those notorious kangaroo courts, a Human Rights Commission. Remind me again why you think this is an act of cowardice Robbo – quite aside from the issue that freedom to speak on any issue in no way implies responsibilty to speak on every issue.
Oh, Robbo – person could have quite a busy life just following you around the blogosphere pointing out where you had come across as an imbecile. Just pointing it our woudl eb a full time job – actually correcting you would take a small staff and a high tolerance for unhinged lunacy.