Well all hell is breaking loose in Canada right now with regard to the Mohammed cartoons.
Ezra Levant was one of the few publishers in Canada to reprint the notorious "Mohammed cartoons" in 2006. Two years later, he's been hauled before a "human rights officer" to explain why offending the delicate sensibilities of sharia-minded imams is
legal, legitimate and necessary.
The Suicide of Reason in Canada by Heather Cooke
Everyone remembers the Mohammed cartoons. Those ten cartoons, each with its own level of offensiveness towards Muslims. Each an affront to anyone professing to believe in Islam and Mohammed as the messenger of Allah.
Very few publishers in North America chose to reprint the cartoons, which originally appeared in the Danish newspaper Jylland Posten in September 2005. Ezra Levant of the
now-defunct Canadian magazine, The Western Standard, was one. Known for his controversial conservative commentary, pro-Israel stance and libertarian beliefs, Levant believed that publishing the cartoons was a necessary exercise in free speech.
On the very day that the Western Standard with the infamous cartoons was being printed, Levant appeared on Calgary radio to debate Syed Soharwardy, an imam trained at an anti-Semitic Saudi university, who advocates Sharia law in Canada. The debate centered around the cartoons and all the accompanying shouldas, wouldas and couldas. Soharwardy did not know that Levant was about to publish the cartoons (a.k.a. offend Mohammed), but that did not matter. Levant was the clear winner in the debate and that offended Soharwardy, who marched down to a Calgary Police station and demanded that they arrest Levant for offending him during the debate and simply discussing the cartoons in the media.
After the officers explained that they didn't do that in Canada, Soharwardy filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The Commission is made up of individuals appointed by the government to hear human rights complaints. The commissioners are a mish-mash of lawyers, nurses, politicians, engineers, who may or may not have direct legal experience.
It costs nothing to file a complaint, so Soharwardy could avail himself of it at no charge while the defendant bears the cost of his defense.
Source: Suicide of Reason
I, personally, am hoping that this case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that, apparently is Mr. Levant's intent.
Why should secular democracies be held hostage to the religious and their draconian sensibilities?
If it's offensive to a Christian that women wear heels and a short skirt, are we going to be forced to wear knee length tweed and flats?
If it's offensive to a Jew that someone eats pork in a restaurant, do we stop serving pork?
If it's offensive to a Hindu that someone kills cows, do we stop killing cows, and eating beef?
If it's offensive to a Sikh that we walk around with nothing covering our hair, do we all have to wear hats and head scarves?
If it's offensive to a Muslim that innocuous caricatures of Mohammed are published, do we stop publishing cartoons of Mohammed?
Does anyone else see the ridiculousness of this?
Especially directed to the religious folk.
Do you think this is reasonable?
Why should those of us who are not religious be victim to having others religious sensibilities imposed on us in a secular democratic society?
Written by Trance Gemini of AvC