Friday, February 17, 2006

Thank You For Surrendering

Our future Muslim overlords are thanking us in advance for acting like proper dhimmis and saving them the trouble of having to riot in the streets of Toronto:

A coalition of Muslim groups is congratulating Canadians for their non-violent response to cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The group says the Canadian response was unique in that it struck a balance between freedom of expression and protecting people from hate and racism. Group spokeswoman Tyseer Aboulnasr also praised Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay for emphasizing responsible expression while condemning the violent reaction to the cartoons in other countries.


This is one compliment to our national character that should grate on us, if we had conscience enough to feel shame.

Source: Yahoo

7 comments:

Willcan said...

Doesn't grate on me. and I'm proud that most of us realize that freedom of speech doesn't give one the right to offend.

Danté said...

Sure, it's a great thing that we recognize the responsibilities of freedom speech and how it means we don't have the right to offend. I just wish that it applied to all religions.

joebal said...

I keep seeing comments like Willcans above, and it has to stop. What is 'free speech' if it isn't the right to offend? If words/writing didn't offend anyone, then why would we need freedom of speech in our (and many other) constitutions? As for your pride in your ignorance, and that of others, I think shame would be what I feel, assuming I felt I was somehow responsible for your foolishness (which I don't).

Javahead said...

Where was the "protection from hate and racism" for Ezra Levant?
The smallest miniority is the individual and until we have guaranteed individual rights as opposed to "group rights" in this country, we don't really have ANY rights that can't be arbitrarily abridged for any or no reason.
This whole cartoon fiasco is offensive to me.

Loyalist said...

Willcan:

Someone is invariably offended whenever a topic that raises even slight controversy is spoken of.

Who defines what is offensive, and how speech should be limited to restrict or prohibit such offence?

Ultimately, that question can only be answered by a test of strength.

Whoever is strong enough to enforce his will, gets to decide what offensive speech is, and how to remedy that offence.

Today it might be you.

Tomorrow it might be I.

The next day, it could be someone far worse.

Anonymous said...

I for one was offended. I object to the idea that the majority need to seek approval from an unelected partisan group which has no defined constituency. This sanctimoneous pat on the head would have a lot more gravitas if these talking heads would care to fill our newspapers with condemnation for embassy burning, beheading of aid workers, public stoning, honour killings and a raft of worthy targets in the muslim world. Their silence is an hypocrisy that undermines their right to judge the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

That's funny, two tory opinions, one for 'the minority' Ezra Lavant, the other for 'the majority', assumedly we are all somehow partners in Ezra's newspaper. Where's my cheque?

What grates on my nerves is how much attention is spent defending ONE GUYS right to offend, all so that he can make more money by doing it.

What's scary is the idea that SOME people have that 'freedom of speech' always means offending somebody. What kind of sick world does THAT come from?

Finally, there's a woman who was sued for millions for exercising her right to free speech, namely taking pictures of hazardous waste left by developers. Here the 'offendees' were millionaire developers, and where were those who champion free speech then?