Yale & the Danish Cartoons: The Plot Thickens
In its August 13 report on the decision by Yale University Press to censor Jytte Klausen’s book The Cartoons that Shook the World by insisting that she publish the book without the Danish cartoons or other images of Mohammed, The New York Times informed its readers that
Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, . . .
It turns out, though, that the recommendation was not “unanimous.” As The Guardian reported yesterday,
Sheila Blair, professor of Islamic and Asian art at Norma Jean Calderwood University and one of the authorities consulted by Yale about publication, said she had “strongly urged” the press to publish the images. “To deny that such images were made is to distort the historical record and to bow to the biased view of some modern zealots who would deny that others at other times and places perceived and illustrated Muhammad in different ways,” she wrote in a letter to the New York Times which is yet to be published.
As it happens, I have a copy of Professor Blair’s letter to the Times. I asked her whether I could make it public; she said no. Perhaps you’ll read it someday in our former paper of record. While you wait for that, however, contemplate these details:
1) The story in the Times implied that in its appeal to experts the University and/or the YUP was exercising normal caution. But in fact, Professor Klausen’s book had already been throughly vetted. Readers’ reports — including two from Muslim scholars — were unanimously enthusiastic. The only [UPDATE: Lib-Dem] Muslim member of the House of Lords, Baroness Kishwer Falker, enthusiastically endorsed the book. The book had also been vetted by YUP’s legal counsel and passed muster. The YUP’s publications committee unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the book for publication. So why call in another “two dozen authorities” on the veritable eve of publication?
Another detail: 2) Professor Blair told me that she was contacted not by the YUP but by the “Office of the President of Yale University.” She spoke with an assistant to President Richard C. Levin. Professor Blair declined to speculate about the significance of that fact. I will not be so chary. Yesterday, I wrote wondering whether John Donatich, the Director of the Yale University Press, was the “villain” or the “fall guy” in this sordid little drama. As I said in response to a comment from Jytte Klausen, “I strongly suspect . . . that the threats-of-violence trope was a pretext, or at most a subsidiary concern” for Yale. What was the real reason that Yale was anxious to bowdlerize Professor Klausen’s book? Even now, I know, energetic investigative reporters are looking into Yale’s financial relationships with some of the spots where Linda Lorimer, Vice President and Secretary of the University, told Professor Klausen she has often traveled recently: Saudi Arabia, for example. Quite soon, I suspect, we will know why the Yale administration insisted that the Yale University Press dim the lux and veritas when it came to Professor Klausen’s book.






Yale is planning to remove the hebrew lettering from its seal because it could be perceived as offensive. Craven.
Where is Norma Jean Calderwood University?
“What was the real reason that Yale was anxious to bowdlerize Professor Klausen’s book? Even now, I know, energetic investigative reporters are looking into Yale’s financial relationships with some of the spots where Linda Lorimer, Vice President and Secretary of the University, told Professor Klausen she has often traveled recently: Saudi Arabia, for example.”
____________________
Wow, color me surprised. The intellectual corruption of our major Universities proceeds apace.
We have to keep forcing this question to the surface, to the point of public prominence, namely , “Why is our culture using its own principles to drive itself to suicide?”
Why do we grant freedom of speech to the Other, but not to ourselves? Why do we grant freedom of religion to the Other but denigrate and restrict our own? Where has courage gone in our public persons? Why can’t we regard enlightened self interest as a virtue?
On the present course the West is doomed to destruction in a matter of years, not decades. The Dark Age that will follow will be the darkest in human history, with all the pressures of a huge world population, and any solutions hamstrung by utter contempt for the spirit of open inquiry that has characterized the West.
It is no exaggeration to say that Yale University Press is a willing participant in the destruction of the culture that allowed it to exist.
Follow the money.
All of the sects of Islam are nothing but superstitious nonsense. Unfortunately these cults contain a disproportionate number of immature younger people who do not understand the nature of reality and like to jump up and down yelling and trying to prove how “faithful” they are. This includes mindless protestations and violence. The older populations of western countries want to have a quiet time of what is left of their diminishing lives and do not want to fight so it is easier to give in to the mindless yelling hordes. Instead of accepting Islam as a valuable way of looking at the world, we should be laughing at their mindless stupidity. Those cartoons should be everywhere for us to see how the cartoonists see Islam. That bombhead one is particularly telling and instead of being covered up everyone should have a chance to look at it and ask “why do some people see Islam this way”.
Thanks for staying on this Mr. Kimball. This is shameful. It seems to be another consequence of the rise of the professional administrators in our not-for-profit, big-endowment institutions. It seems their sole function is to bring in money, by any means, and perhaps to spend it in grandiose ways that have little to do with the institution’s original mission.
Perhaps my reading skills are lacking or perhaps the articles omitted the contractual obligations between YUP and Jytte Klausen, but my curiosity is starved to know why Klaussen can’t publish her book somewhere else.
Is this latest outrage really that unusual? Have we forgotten that the fatuous Paul De Man also taught at Yale? The late William F. Buckley exposed his alma mater’s scandalous anti-intellectualism some sixty years ago in God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom”. Harvard, Columbia, Yale and the other Ivy League academic institutions have long been intellectual whorehouses. Political correctness dominates these so-called elite schools. Only a hard science degree is worthy of respect. The liberal arts credential is often nothing but a joke. Our first goal is to marginalize the MSM. However, the Ivy League universities must also be included on our hit list. They have done too much damage. The examples of their indifference toward rational thought and legitimate scholarship are embarrassing to say the least.
So what are they going to do? “One of the images was a bust of a bearded figure in a turban and the turban also encloses a Tom-and-Jerry style bomb with exposed fuse…. ” Something like that? We know, though we didn’t care prior to the cartoon controversy, that the supposed religious proscription against showing Big Mo does not really exist across the muslim world. But in any case the Yalies would never show anything approaching such deference to Christianity or any other non-explosive religion. This is perverse, utterly.
A correction is called for. The Calderwood Chair is a professorship at Boston College.
Ignoring the Truth does not change the nature of the Truth, and all these cowards have done, by censoring the author, is to rob society, and future generations, of that Truth. Failing to tell the Truth is the same as telling a lie, and in their actions they have violated the trust of the people, and thereby their entitlement to the protection of our Constitution or the support of the people. This is like a doctor choosing not to tell a patient that they have cancer, because it might upset them.
Roger,
Are you aware that the Yale endowment lost $6 billion, or 25% of its value in the second half of 2008?
Would Yale like to see a few billion roll in from the oil kingdoms? Do bears s**t in the woods?
http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2009/08/yale-and-islamic-money-could-it-be.html
There is no Norma Jean Calderwood University, Sheila Blair is the Norma Jean Calderwood University Professor of Islamic Art at Boston College.
When will the Yale administration begin surcharging its students’ tuition for a dhimmi tax?
Harvard isn’t the only higher centre of propaganda in financial trouble, so those with the gold (namely those in the Middle East who sell oil) determine the rules.
An 8 year old can figure this out, and frankly
Yale, like the rest of the zombies, will continue to deny this is the story, even beyond the grave.
Ezra Levant knows full well what is at stake, and frankly the kowtowing to the Sons of Allah
speaks more to the clay, rather than the iron,
of the United States.
Hmm, I’m even more curious to see if they originally had the additional cartoons that the mullahs displayed to get the crowd enraged, the one with Mu hammed with a pig mask, and the other, neither of which were in the original collection (and the pig mask one was from something else altogether, as I recall).
My brother, a Marxist Ivy League professor, has railed for several decades against the autocratic monarchies in the Middle East and their use of religion as a social and political tool. That is, until his funding sources dried up. Now, he makes regular visits to Kuwait, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia to visit the folks who are funding his research and paying his bills.
When the Danish cartoons were first published I was completely delighted, and then was just flummoxed when nearly all of a cowardly free press failed to publish the cartoons in a show of support for a) freedom of speech and expression, and b) support and protect the cartoon authors.
The outrage, by the way, was fabricated as you all well remember. Many publishers cited self preservation as their reason for backing down. It was disgusting and spineless. There is obviously protection in numbers. It is vastly easier for zealots to threaten one singular brave newspaper with the balls to publish the cartoons, than it would be for them to threaten thousands, and ultimately, when these muslim zealots are deluged with Danish cartoons from all sides, and other images, they would have no choice but to make a lot of noise and rant and rave, and then withdraw. Duh… Shame on the world’s publishers for their rubber spines. Had they supported their cartoonist colleagues we would not have this disgusting problem today. This book would probably never have been authored but for this stupid mess – caused in its entirety by failure of the vast number of publishers, to exercise their rights of free press, free speech, and freedom of expression.
There is one great way to put the Muslim zealots in their places now, and that is to publish all the cartoons and all sorts of other Mohammedan images, worldwide. Forget about the book. Publish the same sort of images and creations as those who create and display fecal images of Jesus. Illustrate the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression as it is meant to be free and DO NOT BACK DOWN (!) Jeez…
As to investments, I think eventually, Yale and others will recover their assets, as will most others. We are slowly seeing that recovery taking place so with a little patience the Yale and other fund managers will like to se daylight in their portfolios.
“Yale is planning to remove the hebrew lettering from its seal because it could be perceived as offensive.”
Next the pograms…unless the Israelis can outbid the Saudis.
I bet the oil princes are beginning to wonder if there is anything petrodollars can’t buy in a country whose president bowed to a Moslem king as one of his first acts in office.
CORRECTION PLEASE!
“The only Muslim member of the House of Lords, Baroness Kishwer Falker, enthusiastically endorsed the book.”
She isn’t the only Muslim in the Lords. Rather she is the only Liberal Democrat Muslim in the Lords. There are other Muslim peers, eg. Lord Ahmed, Lord Ali, Baroness Warsi.
Does the book have to be published by Yale University Press? There is a professor of geology in Adelaide, Australia whose name is Ian Plimer. In: http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml we see the willingness of a small publisher, in the middle of no where, agree to publishing a book that was noticed in Australia.
I am thinking the same lesson can be learned.
A small printing firm can get the word out.
The Ivies continue to secularize our history by removing any sign of religion. In doing so, they create an enormous blind spot in their understanding of humanity and how ethics develop. Maybe this explains the the amazing amount of unethical behavior in government.
Yale was passed over when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal gave $20 million each to Georgetown and Harvard to establish Islamic centers, which is to say, Wahhabi indoctrination centers to spread Muslim propaganda. Obviously, publishing the cartoon images of Mohammed would queer any future donations/bribes from the Saudi regime. The president of Yale ripped the images out because his main job is raising money for the university and he likes the heft of those bales of dirty and bloody Wahhabi petrodollars.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/16079
The New York Appelate Courthouse on Madison Square has a row of statues of many classic “lawgivers” that originally included Mohammed. But his statue was removed many years before 9/11. Is anyone going to seriously argue that the New York State courts should not have done that in the 1950′s or 1960′s or before?
Inclusion of the cartoons in this book would likely seriously reduce its effectiveness as an instrument advancing reason and tolerance among the people who one should most want to reach. Creating images of Mohammed does, in fact, grossly offend lots of Islamic people … and not just the loony ones. That’s because basic Islamic law and tradition does, in fact, prohibit the creation of images of Mohammed. Yale is not bound by that prohibition, of course (nor were the New York State courts). But it is a fact that were this book published with such images in it, references to the book would be essentially excluded from internal debate among many more conservative Islamic people than would otherwise be the case (including many scholars). These cartoons are not just images of Mohammed, they are deliberately irreligious images. Without such images in the book conservative Islamic criticism of the book (and there will be plenty of that, with or without the images) will be deprived of the easy argument that the book is hostile to Islam.
One hopes that discussions and arguments among Muslims over this book will cause more conservative Muslims to take the position that, say, serious Christians take to objects like the “Piss Christ,” namely that such an image is offensive and violates Christian precepts, but those precepts don’t bind the world at large and their violation does not justify violence or repression. A Yale book analysing Christian reaction to, say, “Piss Christ” could reasonably omit a reproduction of that image even though Christian reaction to that object was not (physically) violent.
The cartoons at issue are not hard to find on the web. The world is not being deprived of them, nor is access to them materially restricted by Yale’s decision. Moreover, the author of the book HAS agreed to publish it without the cartoons.
I don’t pretend to know the “real” reason Yale University Press wants the book published without these cartoons. But it is highly unlikely that yearnings for Islamic money plays a significant role. I do think the decision of whether to include or not include these images should have been made definitively at the outset with the agreement of the author, and not left to the last minute. The last minute decision looks unprofessional and unsophisticated, which is embarrassing to Yale. But not much more than that.
One possible reason is that the book containing the cartoons is certain to be banned in most Muslim countries, where strict religious laws prohibiting representations of Muhammed are enforced. The French journal “L’Express” had a similar experience last October, when its issue featuring a picture of Muhammad was banned in Morocco.
The book with the inclusion of the cartoons could also jeopardize any interests Yale may have in any of those countries.
Why are we bowing to Islam. We are a free nation with many beliefs, if you don’t like the book, don’t buy it. Do not stop others from doing what they wish.
eman’s nailed it: Follow the money.
The bequests from the oil states are doing a superb and thorough job of destroying academic freedom vis-a-vis Islamic subjects. The cash is doing a great job of turning academia into craven Wahhabi apologists.
Someone should draw a cartoon of Muhammad painted up like the joker. Imagine the firestorm.
The Yale administration is usurping not only the First Amendment to the Constitution, it’s complicit in the demise of the American way of life, including but not limited to the freedom to expose the truth. Why should Yale fear the truth? The truth shall set you free. This issue brings into question the true ulterior motives of the Yale administration. These evil Muslim nations that refuse to allow their female citizens to go to school and force this evil set of lies on their male children that they base on the Koran need to be exposed and ridiculed. Why should Yale fear exposing the truth of the pure evil that is the jihadist movement?
Mark Steyn’s comment about Yale’s disgraceful self-censorship says it all: “Which makes the point more effectively than anything that is going to appear in the text of that book.”
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/talkradio/transcripts/Transcript.aspx?ContentGuid=e25340b0-cacd-4043-b918-ffe2b6c47a1d
When freedom of speech is muffled & choked by this so called great institution,look for otherr publishers who are willing to print the book with out censoring it to satisfy the Saudi Money.
So is the book “The Cartoons that Shook the World”, now that it’s without the Danish cartoons or other images of Mohammed, going to be renamed “The Cartoons that Gently Jiggled the World Without Stirring Up Too Much Trouble”?
I, Rachel Peepers, am flabbergasted that the Yale Press has been placed under the microscope of such intense scrutiny simply for choosing to respect Muslim taboos.
Where I go to school we respect all religions that use implied or overt threats as a means of enforcing their religious prohibitions. If it’s good enough here at Stanford, surely it’s good enough for Yale.
Which is why we have no display of Christmas in any form, and that includes Christmas cards during the Christmas season. It even extends to the humming of Christmas Carols while walking between classes. It’s why, any mention of Hunnikah, 24/7, 365 days a year, oral or written on campus is expressly forbidden.
In fact, when we kicked ROTC off campus, we also asked all non-Muslim places of worship to cease and desist.
Just so no one thinks Stanford pays only lip service to the Muslim community, I also want to convey the fact that last spring semester, a fourth year religion major (Islam being the only major offered for the reason already cited)was accused by his roommate of making a cartoon drawing of a headless Mohammad with the caption, “Danish cartoons drive Mohammad out of his head.”
The student suspect was summarily discharged from the university which placed a full page ad in the New York Times, apologizing for this egregious breech of conduct, and unacceptable affront to all things Islam.
Incidentally, now, entering Stanford Freshman must sign a loyalty oath to the nation of Islam as a condition for admission to this prestigious university.
As the Stanford University President, John L. Hennessy, has stated on many occasions, “We must protect our students, our professors and our institution. We weigh the danger of a threat being carried out by an offended Muslim community (along with monetary punishments) with the risk of making a mockery of free speech. Obviously, we have chosen the latter.”
In the worst case scenario, Tea Partiers will take control of the ICBM silos and launch them all at the Middle East.
To Terry Hughes and swilliams: This is America; and we are Americans. We will not be dhimmi in our own land. If Moslems have a problem and decide to riot, that’s their problem. If we weren’t so namby-pamby with rioters, we would put down any such riot the old-fashioned way, by knocking a few heads together. We cannot and should not be cowed by these primitives who have problems with anger management.
My guess is that Yale has clearly been bought; its motto should no longer be “Light and Truth,” but “Darkness and Cowardice.”
I’m not ready to entirely dismiss Yale. There is a lot of really good, interesting stuff that goes on there, and it generally is a fairly open environment. That said, this episode is simply shameful. It is ironic that at a school that revels in its own traditions, the administration seems to have no respect for conservatism and the Western tradition. Let’s not forgot that this embarrassment pales in comparison to the debacle that resulted when Yale returned a 20 million dollar gift for the study of Western Civilization from philanthropist Lee Bass less than a decade and a half ago. The decision to return the gift must be viewed as the predecessor of the decision to institute religion based censorship. Once Yale turned away from Western civilization, it was only a matter of time before it turned away from decidedly Western principles like academic rigor and freedom of inquiry. Instead, we see Yale using the principles of a backwards band of violent extremists to determine what is and isn’t fit for publication. In this case, their rules say that intellectual freedom is blasphemy, and their rules carry the day.
Score one for anti-intellectualism.
The Ivy League! I have often wondered who Ivy is and just who she is in league with. Now I know. Ivy is in league with whomever sends her gobs of cash!
Mystery solved.
There were 12 cartoons that were published a previously in Egypt to no uproar.
The problem came when three more ‘cartoons’ were added by an imam. Three faked images that the imam claimed were published along with the 12. One of the fake images was a digitized photo of French comedian Jacques Barrot with a pig’s nose that was taken at a pig squealing contest. Another was an image of someone kneeling with an animal mounting the back of the person, claiming to be ‘why muslims pray’ and the third was an ugly sketch of Mohammed as a demonic pedophile.
The very basis of the book being published is false if these three fake images from the imam are not even mentioned.
with our green bullshit, corn and wind machines and solar panels worthy of marcel duchamp it’s still all about oil.
oddbama will continue dismantling western society so as not to offend.
that always worked well with bullies.
and when the party’s over
just send in the yale clowns.
swilliams, why not contact Ezra Levant at http://www.ezralevant.com to ask him if the magazine, Western Standard, was banned because he ran the cartoons as a news story.
Furthermore, he was hauled in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission for doing so, and thankfully it was videotaped, and at least part of the interrogation can be seen at youtube.
What galls me mightily is, there are too many
in the United States who conclude that if it isn’t taking place in the United States, then it isn’t worthwhile looking at. Well, hide your head in the sand, for you have honour killings, as well as other displays of man’s inhumanity to man.
Trying to make you open your eyes is as ludicrous as leading a horse to water, and then try to make it drink.
Why should I bother?
Completely off topic but I can’t resist posting this splendid example of the pathology under discussion:
Headline in “The Age” (the anglosphere’s most PC newspaper) above an article about “Mahommed” being the most popular boy’s name in the Netherlands’ four largest cities:
DUTCH EMBRACE ISLAMIC NAME
I’m not making this up. I defy even the New York Times to come up with something like this.
Is it possible for Ms Klausen to declare Yale in Breach of Contract and withdraw her book from YUP? Is there no other house out there willing to jump at a chance to take a book with built in publicity that promises to sell a quantum multiple of the usual scholarly text?
All the Islamists have is Other People’s Money. They produce nothing. Soon improved power generation systems, think small nuke plants, and new production technologies will reinvigorate the West and relegate these barbarians back to obscurity.
There is nothing so contemptible as a whore who pretends to be virtuous and who condemns those who openly admit to being whores.
If colleges want to engage in policies like these, so be it–but let’s revoke their non-profit status and let everyone who wants to contribute to them to–instead of having a tax deduction–have to pay a gift tax on top of it as well.
The whores and the pimps will wail.
“The very basis of the book being published is false if these three fake images from the imam are not even mentioned.”
Yes.
I don’t see the point of resurrecting the Danish cartoons yet again, in book, article or anything else under the sun.
It turns out that the 12 drawings in JyllandsPosten weren’t sufficiently bad – at least not to justify a trip to the Middle East – so the imams have inserted a few extra images to make sure their trip wasn’t a waste of money.
The “other” drawings
I forget the name of the guy, but the “Saga of Burnt Njal” begins rather like this: “Snorri was the wisest man in Iceland who was not gifted with foresight.”
All these people doing preemptive surrender to appease unappeasable Muslim radicals are like Snorri, lacking in foresight, no matter how intelligent they consider themselves to be on the basis of their credentials. How long before others than Muslims conclude that the only way their groups will get what they consider to be the proper respect is by violence and the threat of violence?
Sure the plot is thickening, but Professor Klausen, by her own account, expressed on earlier threads, is no real victim of censorship. That’s where the plot really gets interesting. She’s a true believer in the danger to Yale Press workers, her family, and world peace if the cartoons would be reprinted in her book. She “understands” Yale’s concerns. According to her web site, she’s a fellow of something called “US Institute of Peace.”
Does anybody with a sane mind belong to such an Orwellian-named organization? Does that “institute” really exist? Seriously. If so, who funds it? What do they do there? An “institute” is a derivative of the word “study.” What do “they” study, exactly?
The plot thickens even further, and it’s somehow creepy.
In the meantime, I’m declaring myself a founder and the first fellow of the “US Institute of War.” And boy, do I have documents to study for generations to come.
The laws of Islam do NOT apply to the laws of America. If it is forbidden for muslims to reproduce a drawing or picture of Mohammed, so be it. But their law does not apply to non-muslims, and it sure as hell doesn’t apply to America.
Terry Hughes,
Are you for real or are you a conservatives straw man parody of the anguished politically correct apologist for any assault on Western Civilization? Why any image of Muhammed was removed from any location is beyond my knowledge, and based on your hand waving use of the information the reason is beyond your knowledge also. Images of the bloody pederast were once added to many courthouses for three reasons.
1) 19th century Imperial display. We dominate all these people so let us display their symbols. A sort of historical zoo of anthropology. The Germans were intending to do that with the peoples they exterminated in WW-II.
2) As a hopeful gesture. Just as we often praise children not for what they have done but for what we want them to do we often are arrogant enough to choose positive images for people to relate to and then construct a story of their compatibility with our values that we hope everybody wil accept. This rarely works. It breeds complacency and ignorance on the part of the dominant community while instilling resentment and contempt in the community being patronized.
3) Genuine ignorance and a fashion to feign erudition by seeking wisdom in distant places. This is similar to the current vogue among American jurists for citing the opinions of foreign courts when interpreting US law.
This does not mean that I deny the benefits of truly studying the works of philosophers and scholars from other cultures. When done properly they can be a source of inspiration and incisive commentary. For example I have no problem with any display featuring the Buddha or Confucious that precedes from a more serious impulse then the ones I gave above.
If an image of Muhammed was removed it was probably not done before 9-11 due to any respect for Moslem sensibilities. At least I would hope that any statement to that effect was issued as a throw away gesture. Images of the Butcher of Yathrib should be removed from the Temples of Justice because they do not belong there. He is unworthy of the honor.
My last comment form 3 hours ago is still in moderation. Hopefully this and that will be released.
The work of William Sloane Coffin at Yale has born fruit. Parasites always are surprised and angered when the host collapses beneath them.
Terry Hughes,
To pile on my point here. It is not the job of the Yale University Press to publish
Nor is it their proper function to strenuosly avoid being
It is there job to publish scholarship and assist in the proper functioning of a research university community. That simple task, if properly performed, will produce an example of reason and tolerance, of civil discourse and intellectual productivity, that will shine like a light into dark places and invite those lost in ignorance to experience the benefits of Lux et Veritas.
Once again the hypocracy of America’s
“Liberal Intellectual” centers is shown for what it is. These are the campuses which offer venues for Islamic extremists to preach hate to the cheers of knee-jerk culturally correct students, while allowing those same students to shout down & prevent opposing speakers from expressing their views, who white wash investigations of leftist professors who have engaged in making statements or practices to violate the civil rights of students who would challenge their views,& grant honary degrees to those who expose some of the most vicious forms of hate (but of course that is directed against those the left opposes). Our Universities have become cesspools for politically correct thinking, for limiting the right of free speech to those with views are contrary to an extreme leftist agenda & becoming a place to legitimize some of the most racist & hideous views. Rather being places of open free debate, the debate is scewed to meet a leftist political agenda, with the claim of racism attached to anyone who would dare to dissent from the popular leftist views.They view terrorists as “militants” and defenders of freedom & free speech as nazis. Yale’s censorship is consistent with this. Shame on them.
“Yale is planning to remove the hebrew lettering from its seal because it could be perceived as offensive.”
I am not sure if this is true or not, but if you check out the Yale website you won’t find the seal at all. Goodbye Hebrew and goodbye Latin?
Saudi money… It gets around, it talks.
Since images of him who must not be imagined, er imaged, and who I will not name so as not to have to omit the ridiculous ‘puu-buh!’, since the ‘puu’ part seems to include exploding school children into parts and pieces as well as using dull knives, (the fundamentalist ‘puu’ loving ones) or electric knives, (the moderate ‘puu’ loving ones…how does anyone know something is, or is not the said unnamed…guy? So publish the cartoons and include this disclaimer: “These are not pictures, reproductions, drawings, cartoons nor images of the guy for whom murders are committed by certain people out of ‘anger caused only by poverty and the worldwide Jewish plot to drink the blood of the children of said certain people before said certain people can blow up their own children’…and, we repeat, this ain’t that guy!!!”
In the past, the prestige of Yale and Harvard derived not only from the research of its faculty and the success of its students but also from the fact that it was the best University in the most powerful democracy on earth. Now that our nation is a socialist multi culti dump ruled by The Joker, why should we surprised that our money mad Ivy Leagues schools have turned into whores willing to turn a trick for Islamic petrodollars?
“Norma Jean Calderwood University Professor of Islamic Art at Boston College.”
That such a pompously overlong title exists proves the intellectual paucity of American academia.
That’s because basic Islamic law and tradition does, in fact, prohibit the creation of images of Mohammed.
Factually, there’s a mention in the Koran about barring pictorial representation. I don’t have the Sura # and I don’t recall if it’s pictures in general or, specifically, pictures of the Prophet.
Either way, images of Mohammed have not been a particular issue throughout the centuries. (see link below)
The entire point of the manufactured cartoon brouhaha was to attack westerners and for said westerners to get their shorts in a knot.
The Danish imam-instigator is/was of the especially “hate the west” virulent variety.
Every time we hand wring over this stuff, individuals hellbent on substituting their culture for ours cheer and give each other high fives.
It’s not about respect, it’s about domination.
Mohammed Image Archive
This is America. Yes the cartoons should be printed.
It’s no secret that Saudi Arabia has funded American colleges and created Middle Eastern Studies departments in our universities. It is through colleges that the Saudi’s are indoctrinating whole generations of our youth. Once Americans accept that multiculturism must be appreciated and accepted, the Saudi’s can move like rats throughout the US; infecting Americans with Islam.
Throughout history the US allies were selected only on the basis of our needs. We have had some strange bedfellows….and are now finding ourselves in uncharted waters.
It’s time to take back America and behave like Americans. Let’s begin by publishing the cartoons.
Like I said before: This is not the United States of Islam. It’s the United States of America.
Islamic laws are not our laws. Period.
Yale University Press is just plain wrong to deny publishing those cartoons. But as we know, leftism is always on the wrong side of everything – always.
Jack in Silver Spring wrote: “To Terry Hughes…: This is America; and we are Americans. We will not be dhimmi in our own land.”
Yes, this is America; and we are Americans. And that’s Americans try to reach others with reasoned argumentation before taking other steps. A precondition to that is that one REACHES those others, a precondition that is helped along quite a bit by not offending them with unnecessary gestures so much that they won’t (or can’t) listen to the argument in the first place. By your reasoning is it shameful of the United States to deploy stealth bombers that avoid enemy radar and antiaircraft fire merely on the grounds that stealth bombers are more likely to deliver their “message” successfully ? Just asking.
Although you do not actually answer any of my arguments with reasoned discussion, I infer that you do not agree with me. But it is not exactly a surprise that someone who does not even purport to address an argument but instead conjures such a “dhimmi” distraction places a low value on the brand of reasoned discussion Yale is trying to advance here. The New York State Courts were not dhimmi in their own land when they removed the statue of Mohammed from their Appellate Court building decades ago, and Yale is not dhimmi for choosing a publication format that probably increases the desired intellectual importance and impact of its book.
Lifeofthemind wrote: “If an image of Muhammad was removed it was probably not done before 9-11 due to any respect for Moslem sensibilities.”
No, you are wrong. Some Islamic countries made the request of New York State that the statue be removed because it offended Moslem sensibilities and New York complied out of courtesy. It’s not that hard to look up, if you care to bother before embarrassing yourself on the point again. For example, you can go to the Courthouse and ask around. Try it.
As for your curious list of reasons people used statues of Mohammed in other places, who cares? The statue on Madison Square had been included in the row of lawgivers along with Solon, Justinian and other lawgivers because Mohammed was an important lawgiver and that seemed like a nice way to decorate a courthouse at the time. Similarly, in front of the Griffith Park Observatory in Los Angeles there is a ring of statues of historically important astronomers at its base, because that seemed like a nice way to decorate an observatory.
As an aside, if Mohammed were still there (or restored) would you construe that as endorsement of Sharia by the New York State Courts? If not, why not? Is New York damned for removal of Mohammed because removal was cowardly, but would be also damned for retaining Mohammed because that’s an implied endorsement of Sharia? Of course, nobody construes inclusion of, say, Justinian, as endorsement of the Justinian Code. But then nobody previously construed removal of Mohammed’s image as anything but a courtesy of Muslim sensibilities.
Lifeofthemind also wrote: “It is not the job of the Yale University Press to publish an instrument advancing reason and tolerance among the people who one should most want to reach. Nor is it their proper function to strenuously avoid being excluded from internal debate among many more conservative Islamic people. It is there job to publish scholarship and assist in the proper functioning of a research university community.”
There is the rather obvious fact that none of Lifeofthemind, Hitler, Bin Laden, nor the current Ayatollah of wherever has any role in defining a job description for Yale University or its press or in dictating what is the “proper” way to assist the proper functioning of a research university community. It’s incredible that one has the practical oppportunity to even write such a thing.
Beyond that, I, personally, cannot imagine a better “job” for Yale University Press than to include in its “job” the publishing of instruments advancing reason and tolerance among the people who one should most want to reach and informing internal debate among groups of people seriously affecting important human events … even groups of people we don’t like. Put another way: Its just fine with me f Yal want to publish this boo o a lot of conervative Msims will read it , be affetced by it and threfore stop telling people to blow things up the next time the see an image of Mohammed in a newspapr. Lifeofthemind dissents. That dissent is his or her right regardless of whatever his or her “job” or “proper function” happens to be or I might like it to be.
As for the rest of what Lifeofthemind had to say above, I will leave it unaddressed except to direct the readers’ attention to it again with the request: “Behold.”
tanstaaflseeks to play the role of an ayatollah hiself by pronouncing the correct reading of the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts and traditions. Islam never has a “pope” before tanstaafl came along to tell everyone what’s what. Who knows, may tanstaafl’s view of Islamic law and tradition is right and the views of all those other ayatollahs is wrong. Certainly not me. But it’s a lot more likely that the views expressed in this book will influence the internal discussions among tanstaafl and all the other important immans and ayatollahs of our time if the book does not include those Danish cartoons.
Shalom!
I fail to see the mystery here. All that is missing from the money chasers at Yale is a Netura Karta kapote and peyess flying in the wind as they chase an Arab penny down a hill….
Context people. Danish Imams were on caravan and they pointed to the cartoons which were printed, and included in that collection were cartoons not printed, but according to the Danish imams were printed.
As long as Allah is only transcendent, not immanent, continue to expect those who say, “This is the will of Allah” to cast a blind eye to this situation: two brothers saw their father pass away, and they received his plot of land as an inheritance. They could not agree on how to divide the land. They went to
a judge, and he ruled that one brother divide
the land, and the other get first choice.
This goes a long way in explaining why citizens of countries which do not have diplomatic relations with Israel are buying agricultural land in Israel. For the government of the State of Israel not to insist on reciprocity, in other words that Jews enjoy property rights in those countries
(they do not, as evidenced by the column “Hitler’s dream come true” by George Jonas),
Israel is passing on a great opportunity to show to everyone that the talk of peace is one
thing, but Israel currently has no partner to
match the deeds which usher in peace.
As long as South Syrian Arabs, in particular, and all Arabs in general, continue to insist that the dominant perspective of the relationship they have with Jews, as well as Christians, has to be that of Boyar to serf, because they fear Jews as well as Christians taking on the role of Boyar while they have to make due with the role of serf, they will continue to demonstrate the Abba Eban quote, “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.
FYI, a boyar owned land, and a serf was allowed to work the land.
America must show courage. Amazon.com just did by giving the okay to Noor Barack’s “How Fatima Started Islam. Insult after insult page after page. Did you know Mohammad was a drunken, child molesting pimp?
First Amendment Versus Fatwa?
…tanstaafl seeks to play the role of an ayatollah hiself by pronouncing the correct reading of the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts and traditions.
The Koran is an easy read, written down, in fact, some 150 years after the the Prophet’s death. He, as I’m sure you know, neither read nor write. I’ve read it 3x, granted not in that sacred Arabic
The One Idea I find enlightening is Mohammed’s (alleged) insistence that nothing need stand between the individual and Allah, no texts, no cadres of holy men, no religious scholars, and certainly not centuries of increasingly elaborated Shari’a law, Hadith.
However, 1400 years later, here we all are stuck in this interpretive blather about Islam, with feuding sects as a function of their never ending arguments as to who, exactly, was Mohammed’s legitimate successor.
The only salient truth for me, having observed and studied closely since 911,is that there is an active agenda to subdue and conquer the west on the part of many “radical” Islamists, of both major stripes. Events in the world, in the 2 or 3 decades preceding 911, and certainly since, bear this out.
Copious western academics who carry Islam’s “sacred text” water will, hopefully, be the first to go.
But it’s a lot more likely that the views expressed in this book will influence the internal discussions among tanstaafl and all the other important immans and ayatollahs of our time if the book does not include those Danish cartoons.
The internal discussion is over. The 12 cartoonists are sick of it. The guy who drew the most infamous one, Mohammed’s turban as a bomb, later drew himself with the bomb turban. I think he was thoroughly fed up with the nonsense, as any normal human being would be. I also think he may have died, vaguely recalling.
…neither read nor write
wrote
There are non-violent Muslims who have thrived in western cultures for a long time. I haven’t offended them, they haven’t offended me.
It’s no big deal.
However, there happens to be now an entire industry out there now to defeat western culture. The politically correct in “the west” (you sound like the poster child) are their biggest enablers.
Until peaceful Muslims comes out more demonstratively against these would be destroyers, I will remain a huge skeptic.
You might start getting educated away from the hothouse atmosphere of academia. You might check out the agenda for North America, the English starts about page 16,
Islam as a “civilization alternative”
A Tempest in a Teapot
————
To: #71 Terry Hughes
It’s always a treat to read a well-thought out, linear, logical and astute posting on Blog Commentary sections, such as Terry Hughes displays here, whether you agree with him or not.
I do concur with him that the “dhimmi” argument, a poorly understood Islamic concept bandied about especially by non-cognoscenti, is a “distraction” that leads nowhere. More to the point, what hasn’t been said about this term is more important than what has been said.
The fact is, “dhimmitude” (to use a ghastly neologism) is a historical practice that no longer is legally active or recognized in *any* Moslem country anywhere and hasn’t been for centuries. So to put it forward as part of an argument vis a vis contemporary Islam is laughable.
It’s like saying that being “tarred, feathered and shackled” is still a legitimate and customary form of punishment in the US since it was practiced in Colonial times.
Thinking of this kind can only be described as moronic – and there’s a lot of it around the blogosphere.
But Terry’s argument defending Yale’s decision not to use the cartoons in Klausen’s new book is weak. It appears he believes it is nothing more than a “tempest in a teapot”.
But I think it is much more than that.
First of all, it’s almost certain that had the book depicted the “founder” of any other religion, Yale U.P. would have scoffed at the idea that it should consult “experts” to determine if it was safe to proceed with publishing “cartoons”.
That means that it is only Islam that is accorded this unprecedented consideration.
Any way you cut it, it’s a capitulation to the concept of freedom of the press and so on. It’s a chipping away at the supposedly untrammeled right of a publisher to publish whatever he pleases without fear of retribution, particularly violent retribution.
Secondly, this is not the first Western publication dealing with Islam that has come under scrutiny at least and vitriolic condemnation along with “lawsuits” at worst for appearing in print. Crone’s “Hagarism” and “Alms for Jihad” are 2 that immediately come to mind.
In other words, and again, it is only books dealing with “Islam” in one way or another that are subject to this “foreign” censorship to which publishers take immediate and unrepentant heed.
Thirdly, there is no question that departments, chairs and so forth at elite Western universities have had massive amounts of funding coming their way from the Islamic world for several years now. And like it or not, every man has his price.
Terry says “I don’t pretend to know the “real” reason Yale University Press wants the book published without these cartoons. But it is highly unlikely that yearnings for Islamic money plays a significant role.”
As I said, every man has his price.
Daniel Pipes has often said that “soft Jihad” or the acceptance of Sharia practices by lawful means within Western societies is the most dangerous form of world Islmaization, regardless how innocent some of these practices appear to be.
Therefore, I can’t agree with Terry that Yale’s decision in this regard is “…. unprofessional and unsophisticated….but not much more than that”
Cherchez l’argent
“The cartoons at issue are not hard to find on the web. The world is not being deprived of them, nor is access to them materially restricted by Yale’s decision.”
A book discussing the cartoons has no cartoons included. Silly. The book had better explain the three cartoons which caused the problem were created by a Muslim holy man.
Yale University is a cowardly place
By Ezra Levant on August 14, 2009 12:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (38) | Trackback
Yale University Press has announced that it will censor the Danish cartoons of Mohammed from their forthcoming book about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. In other words, they will destroy the core intellectual integrity of the book, in a pre-emptive submission to sharia law.
Here’s the response by the American Association of University Professors:
“We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.” That is effectively the new policy position at Yale University Press, which has eliminated all visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad from Jytte Klausen’s new book The Cartoons That Shook the World. Yale made the unusual decision not only to suppress the twelve 2005 Danish cartoons that sparked organized protests in many countries but also historical depictions of Muhammed like a 19th-century print by Gustave Doré. They are not responding to protests against the book; they and a number of their consultants are anticipating them and making or recommending concessions beforehand.
In an action that parallels prior restraint on speech, Yale also refused to give the author access to consultants’ reports unless she agreed in writing not to discuss their contents. Such reports typically have their authors’ names removed, but a prohibition against discussing their content is, to say the least, both unusual and objectionable.
Publishers often refuse to print color illustrations to save money or limit the number of black and white illustrations to reduce the length of a book, but Yale Press has not raised any financial issues here. The issues are: 1) an author’s academic freedom; 2) the reputation of the press and the university; 3) the impact of these twin decisions on other university presses and publication venues; 4) the potential to encourage broader censorship of speech by faculty members or other authors. What is to stop publishers from suppressing an author’s words if it appears they may offend religious fundamentalists or groups threatening violence? We deplore this decision and its potential consequences.
Cary Nelson, AAUP President
That’s a good start.
A number of American publications reprinted the cartoons. Going from memory (which is always risky), the Weekly Standard did, the Rocky Mountain News did, the Philadelphia Inquirer did, the Atlantic Monthly did, and a half-dozen other large media. That’s not a lot, and it was a scandal that the New York Times didn’t — or for that matter, my favourite U.S. magazine, National Review. But my point is, enough U.S. media did run them to show that Yale’s concern about violence is completely misplaced. None of the American media that reprinted them were subject to violence. And even if they had: since when does Yale silence the truth at the demand of threateners?
Yale is protected by campus police, “real” police, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Defence. More to the point, Yale is not located in Syria or Iran, where those two countries’ secret police whipped up staged anti-Danish riots as public distractions from their own political problems. (As we have seen in both of those countries, spontaneous political rallies are crushed by the secret police; the cartoon riots were orchestrated by those governments.)
I’ve said it before, and this is depressing proof of it: the fatwa against those cartoons, issued on the streets of Damascus and Teheran, did more damage to our North American culture of liberty than did 9/11 itself.
9/11 killed thousands of people and cost countless dollars. But other than those who were killed that day and their families, and those in our volunteer armed forces, 9/11 really didn’t change our lives other than perhaps the frustrating kabuki we go through at airport security. What’s different in our daily lives?
The Danish cartoon riots, though, had an enormous effect. They planted seeds of fear in the minds of thousands of editors, publishers, producers, journalists, professors, politicians and other “public intellectuals” — the dealers in ideas, the opinion leaders. They have chilled the intellectual climate of the West. They have made us disarm ourselves — or at least gag ourselves, which is a step towards intellectual disarmament. To cause Yale, with the beautiful motto “truth and light”, to censor the truth that was going to shine a light on a dark subject, is a staggering blow to the heart of the American academy. Imagine Yale’s reaction had such a publication ban been issued by an American court or legislature: they would have shrieked censorship and invoked the First Amendment, and with good cause. But a publication ban issued by fatwa from the ayatollahs of Iran and their colony in Syria? It was obeyed with the zeal of a convert by the appeasers at Yale.
It is not fear of violence; and if it is, it is not acceptable. It is fear of being politically incorrect. It’s fear of being unfashionable. It is self-abnegation; self-destruction; voluntary, pro-active cultural suicide; it is a willing embrace of sharia before sharia is even forced. It is the renunciation of the western, liberal, enlightment values that created Yale, and an embrace of Islamic fascism and its intellectual closed-mindedness.
Enough for now. Let me close with my own essay of explanation for the decision of the Western Standard magazine to publish the cartoons in 2006, a decision that has led to many wonderful things, including to the current debate about freedom of speech in Canada. At the end of the essay are some of the 7,000 letters to the editor we received in the two weeks that followed. Here it is:
Editor Kevin Libin and I agreed: it was just one of those times when a fortnightly magazine wouldn’t be able to move quickly enough. By the time the Western Standard would roll off the presses, every other daily newspaper and weekly magazine in the country would have already printed the Danish cartoons that were the subject of riots around the Muslim world. If we were going to publish them after Maclean’s, the National Post and the Sun chain did, we’d have to take a different, more reflective approach–not to put the cartoons on the cover as a bold statement of freedom, as the others surely would. We would analyze how the media responded to the implied threats of violence from radical Muslims, we would look at how agents provocateurs used the cartoons to whip up riots in Iran, Pakistan and Syria to serve their own political ends, and we would reveal how the Muslim world itself has depicted Mohammed throughout the ages.
That was the plan, anyways. Of course, Maclean’s, the Post and the Sun didn’t publish the cartoons. As we came closer to our production deadline, it dawned on us that no large-circulation publication and no TV station in the country had done so, and none would. We’d be the first.
We didn’t know what would happen; there had been a minor scuffle at a university in Halifax when a professor posted the cartoons on his office door–several belligerent students invaded his office and berated him. A larger protest followed, as did one in Toronto, apropos of nothing, in front of the Danish consulate. We decided to call the Calgary Police Service’s Middle East community relations unit, just to give them the heads-up about what was coming. We hired some extra security for our office, too, out of an abundance of caution.
The magazine was still at the printer when word somehow leaked out that we were publishing the cartoons. The Friday before we rolled off the press, the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun both called to confirm it, and it was front-page news in Calgary on Saturday. By noon that day, radio and TV stations had picked up the story and were running with it nationally, following me on a visit to Saskatoon just to get the details. By the time Monday morning rolled around–before a single newsstand or subscriber had received the magazine–it was front-page news across the country, and was being given Michael Jackson-style coverage on TV and radio. That day, CTV alone interviewed me three separate times. Before the week was out, the news of our publication was the subject of more than 100 news stories, including on Al Jazeera and China’s Xinhua.
Why was it such a big story? I don’t mean the cartoons themselves–we know why they’re news. But why was the fact that we published them considered news? The cartoons were the central artifact in the largest news story of the month. How could any self-respecting “news” outlet–other than radio stations that are forced to paint pictures with words–not display them? It wasn’t for us to answer why we published them, it was for the rest of the media to answer why they did not.
In fact, a large number of journalists privately complimented us for doing what their own publishers had not allowed them to do, and some wrote supportive columns. I received kudos from many interviewers during commercial breaks, and unsolicited e-mail notes and phone calls. There was a pent-up frustration amongst the press corps that they had not been permitted to fully plumb the issues behind the cartoons and the riots, and our decision to publish gave them an opportunity to do so, using us as a surrogate.
A smaller but more vociferous group of reporters took the opposite approach, either in criticizing our bona fide news decision to publish them (such as gratuitously mentioning the fact that Libin and I are Jewish), or in magnifying the reaction to our publication, such as when two of our newsstand distributors, Chapters/Indigo and McNally Robinson, decided not to stock that one issue (they’re both selling this latest edition). The eagerness among some of the press to report negative business ramifications bordered on the obsessive; it was as if they were hunting for some after-the-fact justification that their own decisions to censor themselves were valid. It was bad enough that we broke their censorship cartel and provided our lucky readers with the news they wanted. It embarrassed the self-righteous wing of the press corps that a plucky little magazine in Calgary showed more dedication to the craft of journalism than the grandees at CBC headquarters. But for us to do so without any severe suffering–as I write this, not a single protester has visited our offices, not a single bomb threat has been made–is an additional rebuke to their own timidity.
Publishing the cartoons did not create a frenzy among our subscribers or our advertisers. We actually sold several hundred new subscriptions, and hundreds more single-issue sales out of our office. It did not “inflame” the Muslim community. Our office was business as usual. The only people who went into a frenzy over it were the rest of the media, publicly examining their own neurosis about having failed in their duty to put reporting above political correctness.
It is by now trite to rebut the principal excuses made by the “mainstream media,” but let us do so again. I can think of five.
First, some editors said that the cartoons do not meet their editorial standards. They are “juvenile” said The New York Times (insert your own joke here about that never having been a problem for the press before). But we did not publish the cartoons as an editorial message from us; we neither agree nor disagree with the cartoons. We published them as a fact, as a piece of evidence, to illustrate what was being “blamed” for riots overseas. If juvenile cartoons could really cause embassies to be burnt to the ground, that is news that’s fit to print.
The second objection, made to me by Harry Forestall of the CBC, was that anyone who wanted to see the cartoons could find them on the Internet (though, not on the CBC’s website, of course). That’s partly true (they were online, but a challenge for some people to find), but that’s hardly the proper motto for something claiming to be a news organization. If the best argument the CBC can muster, with its billion-dollar-a-year tax subsidy, is that some little blogger is already meeting Canada’s demand for news, then what’s the point of having the CBC? Forestall’s point answers itself. The mainstream media is now about cultivating an official groupthink; those wishing contrary points of view or who want to judge spicy subjects for themselves must look elsewhere.
The third objection, made to me in a debate with Scott Anderson, VP editorial for all the CanWest newspapers, is that the media self-censored to avoid giving offence to religion. But that’s not credible. Not a day goes by without something offensive to Christians being published. The most shocking example, of course, was the photograph entitled Piss Christ,” wherein “artist” Andres Serrano photographed a crucifix immersed in a vial of his own urine, an image published in every magazine and newspaper in North America, and the source of much huffing and puffing from editors about freedom of speech. That’s just the biggest example; from Hollywood’s Last Temptation of Christ, to South Park’s treatment of Jesus, Christianity–and every other religion–has had to learn to deal with a free press through peaceful protest, such as writing letters to the editor.
I debated Anderson, and he admitted that “under different circumstances we may have published some of these cartoons to illustrate the story . . . but the reaction is so vitriolic and so angry . . . there is some deep offence here that I don’t see in the cartoons, but others obviously do.” So, Anderson acknowledged that the cartoons are fairly mild and that if he was truly following his own news judgment, he would have run them. But the response was just “so angry” that he caved in. I appreciated the honesty.
The Globe and Mail ‘s Edward Greenspon came up with a twist on Anderson’s explanation, saying that the cartoons were “unnecessarily provocative,” so he chose to censor them. Like CanWest, he chose to outsource his own editorial judgment to those who could show–or feign–the angriest offence. It is horrendous that major newspapers allow any angry heckler to veto them; it is embarrassing that editors would parrot the language of the censors by implying that the publication of the cartoons was done to provoke, as opposed to report the news. Greenspon’s argument, too, concedes that it wasn’t an editorial judgment, but a political or public relations judgment–the fear of “provoking”–that denied his readers their news.
The final and most delicious excuse offered by the media was that they did not publish cartoons out of “respect” for Islam. But the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal, especially on the key Muslim issue of sexuality. Strictly interpreted, Islam is against homosexuality, abortion and women’s rights–the touchstones for the liberal media, as they prove each federal election. Since when did the gay-friendly Globe “respect” sharia law, which condemns gays to death? Since when did the pro-choice, pro-feminist Toronto Star “respect” sharia, which strictly limits women’s rights? No, that is not respect. That is fear.
Perhaps it was that same incoherent fear that expressed itself through the mouths of the new Conservative defence and foreign affairs ministers. Gordon O’Connor announced that our publication would endanger our troops in Afghanistan; Peter MacKay said that freedom of speech must be limited to what is “responsible” and “appropriate,” and that his department would now “promote a better understanding of Islam internationally.” Our troops–including our many subscribers in the Canadian Forces–know that cartoons don’t kill people. Terrorists kill people. And the reason we have armed forces is to protect our freedoms. In response to his ministers’ gaffes, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued his own statement, correcting the record and giving his unlimited endorsement to freedom of speech. These excuses seemed pretty flimsy to us, and to the majority of the thousands of people who e-mailed and phoned us from around the world. And, according to a February poll conducted by COMPAS, a public opinion research company, fully 70 per cent of Canada’s working journalists disagreed with their own editors’ decision to censor the cartoons–they supported our position.
The story has more or less played itself out. There are some loose ends, such as a complaint filed against us by some Calgary Muslim leaders, both to the police and to the human rights commission. Of course, this is a more civilized approach than the barbaric rioting overseas, and let us give credit to Canada’s Muslims where it is due. But that authoritarian instinct–to run to the police and the courts to enforce a Muslim religious edict, or even to settle a score or an argument–is deeply troubling.
As a lawyer, I see those complaints as nuisance suits, designed to waste our time and money, and as a further warning to other media that to defy the imams is not cost free. But the larger problem is that the official leaders of Canada’s Muslim community have not yet been inculcated in the concept of a truly diverse society, where differences of opinions are resolved without resort to the state, and where the rest of us do not have to submit to Muslim edicts. The biggest and most pleasant surprise in my week was the number of Muslim and Arab subscribers who signed up in solidarity with us. They told us they came to Canada to get away from sharia law, and they don’t want that law following them here. Perhaps our new minister of citizenship and immigration, Monte Solberg, will beef up the civics classes for new immigrants. Under the Liberal government, new immigrants were handed a little Canadian flag and told to vote Liberal. Perhaps it’s time we taught the supremacy of Canada’s Constitution, and that in this country we all submit to Queen Elizabeth’s laws.
The ruckus is over and we all survived. Hopefully, that in itself will encourage other media to live up to the industry’s supposed ideals in the future. For decades, journalists have claimed to follow a higher standard than other commercial industries, and have often looked contemptuously on other businesses. We see now that it was all a sham; when a real threat came to freedom of expression–not a benign church lady protesting Piss Christ, or a harmless customs officer trying to block some pornography, but the risk of true violence–Canada’s official keepers of freedom of speech hid under their desks. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association was silent; PEN Canada and Amnesty International actually told journalists to restrict what they say. So much for them. We should never grant them the moral high ground again. And Canadians who trusted those cowardly guardians with their liberal values–feminism, gay rights, abortion, secularism, true diversity, things that are at risk under sharia law–should do some contemplation. It’s an odd thing when a western magazine, widely perceived as conservative, is the chief bulwark against a theocratic muzzle on Canada’s Toronto-based liberal media.
I’ve never been prouder of our magazine, and everyone associated with it. Not a single member of our staff and not one of our owners disagreed with our decision to publish. And all this right on our second anniversary of publication. I can promise you many more years of independent, honest reporting that tells it like it is.
We received more than 7,000 letters in response to our decision to run the Danish cartoons–some supporting us, some condemning us. Thanks to all who took the time to write. Though we can’t run all the letters, here’s what some of you had to say:
Why publish the cartoons when you see the chaos that these publications are creating around the world? Must we bring the violence to Canada? Are you out of your minds? What in heaven’s name is wrong with you people? Do you want to be “right” or do you want to be happy?
J. Bilodeau
- – -
This is a short message of support, from a Canadian living in London, England, for your editorial decision to publish the controversial cartoons. The decision of many Canadian and British periodicals not to publish the cartoons undoubtedly has been based on genuine fear for the lives and safety of those associated with the publications. I suppose that such fear may be a good defence for their decision; after all, there is no rule that they must be brave. However, for these publications to deny that they are fearful, for them to offer up a spurious or misleading justification for the decision not to publish, and for them to vilify those who do publish, does not help to preserve a free and democratic society.
Marke Raines
- – -
I’m going to purchase a subscription. Why? Your magazine’s take on politics and my views are not on the same page–not by a long shot. But I do believe in free speech, and freedom of the press. Nobody tells me what to read; I’m a free man and this is a free society. This magazine is showing courage in the face of great loss, and I respect that.
Darren Parks
- – -
It is regrettable that you have decided to publish the infamous cartoons. You basically want to insult over one billion Muslims. Do you print nude men and women on the front page of your publication just to show the freedom of press?
Habib Khan
- – -
I felt tremendous relief when I read that you have published the cartoons. As a liberal feminist, I am crushed that the CBC has not published those cartoons, and I am glad that someone is standing up for basic principles of free speech. Usually I am against nearly everything the Western Standard stands for, but in this case I am grateful to you for defending me and my country against bullies and thugs.
Melissa Svendsen
- – -
I don’t think anyone who has glimpsed the Western Standard would be surprised at what your “rag” publishes. We are aware that most of the writers are Jewish, no doubt the magazine is owned by Jews, therefore we know the motivation. The Jewish-owned media in Canada hides behind laws that protect Jews while stirring up hatred against others. It will be interesting to see what happens when the tables turn, like it did once before, in pre-war Germany.
Judy Lane
- – -
Thank you all for your bravery. My dad, who fought five years in the Second World War, would be proud. He hated pussies, as you can imagine.
Robert Zurrer
- – -
You’ve done the right thing. Your purpose is to inform, and accomplishing that mission takes courage. I applaud yours.
Keith A. Verble, MSgt, USAF
- – -
These mild little pictures that you published could not have caused the uproar we see. Please put your money where your mouth is and show us the real thing. If these were really it, then we are dealing with Grade A paranoia.
Alexander Paton
- – -
I have recently read of the persecution that your paper has suffered as a result of your decision to publish the Mohammed cartoons. Given the worldwide intimidation that has been perpetrated against any press daring to exercise their freedoms thus, your decision to do so was not only courageous, but a fine example to the craven press, who have allowed their agendas to be set by intimidation, violence and the threat thereof. I believe that your action was justified, in these circumstances or any others. Freedom does not exist where it cannot be exercised.
Jason Briscoe
- – -
So now the lives of our troops are in jeopardy because you, the editor, are an a–hole? Kudos to the retailers who declined to sell your rag. But have you learned nothing? You’re still offering to sell it? Your parents did a very, very bad job in raising you. You are a disgrace to this country!
Lisanne Tussault
- – -
Though the Muslims riot worldwide and the media spins it to make it look like the rioters are foaming at the mouth, if these cartoons had been depicting Hitler with the Star of David in his eyes having tea with Benjamin Netanyahu, I fear the consequences would have been much more severe. We would likely see legal action, loud Jewish outcry and a few deportations to European countries that have stricter penalties for picking on Jews. So, now that the same laws your people enacted as a shield from scrutiny are being used against your Western Standard by Muslims, free speech has all of a sudden become something worth fighting for?
Sisko Brill
- – -
I spent over two years in Saudi Arabia and left just before 9/11. I often watched the religious police beat and herd people into the mosques with sticks at prayer time. I saw the devout Muslims treat Indian, Pakistani and Indonesian Muslims as slaves, beat and mistreat them. I know that the only reason newspapers are not printing the cartoons is fear. We should print a cartoon every day on the front page until they understand that they cannot, and we will not, allow them to take away our freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of or from religion.
Bob Savage
- – -
What is it with you people? First you kill Jesus and now you’re attacking the Prophet Mohammed? No wonder Hitler felt so threatened seeing himself as a new-world saviour.
M. Stevens
- – -
I am the very proud mother of a son who chose to serve in the Canadian military. A young man, who wants to make a positive change in the world. To assist in restoring peace to the Middle East, so those people can live a life of less deprivation and hostility. You are simply sabotaging all the good the Canadian army is doing in Afghanistan, and you should be made an example of, as what not to be. You should be sadly ashamed of yourself, as should your mother.
Diane Ricard
- – -
The world’s TV screens and newspapers have been filled with images of rioting Muslims and embassies ablaze, as well as stories of at least 12 people who have been killed in this carnage. What is missing is any sense of context. Seeing these cartoons, which are largely innocuous, makes this Islamic orgy of destruction even harder to believe.
The Western Standard has every human right to publish those cartoons, or anything else it deems worthy of information and conversation. Readers, consumers, advertisers, policy-makers and citizens in Canada, the U.S. and every freedom-loving nation in the world should stand with them, rather than with the self-appointed censors who are trying to shut them down, and with their weak-kneed, summertime friends who are sprinting into the tall grass now that things have gotten hot.
Deroy Murdock
- – -
We as Christians have nativity scenes vandalized at Christmas, but an Islamic cartoon is forbidden? Discouraged by Prime Minister Harper of all people? We really need a reality check in this country. Freedom of speech is a Canadian right, administered and controlled by Canadians, not Islamic fundamentalists or wimpy prime ministers.
Harry L. Jack
- – -
Why do you feel a need to do this at this time? Why not when they were first published? Of course, it wouldn’t have been profitable back then. It would have simply been an insulting gesture to the Muslim community. But now you stand to profit from this, as we can already see it all over the news. Your name is everywhere. Now, that’ll pay. I guess you’re just doing “your job,” and you’ll probably hit the delete button after reading this letter, but I wish to remind you, at this time, that whichever religion you might be related to, God will remember your decision to have thrown fuel on the fire.
Francois Dumais
- – -
At last, a magazine that tells it like it is! Thank you for the courage to stand up for freedom of speech. Why would anyone try to stifle the very freedoms that they came to Canada to enjoy?
Leona Stordeur
- – -
I support the decision of the Western Standard to publish the cartoons about Mohammed. Making fun of religion is something Canadians have done for a long time and we should not change. We recognize the dangers of organized religion, while valuing our own private spiritual pursuits. Maybe there should have been cartoons of all the major religions, showing the faults and hypocrisy of them all.
Donald McPherson
- – -
Until recently, as a Canadian living and working in Indonesia, I had nothing to really worry about. The fanatics are nowhere near as plentiful as the western media would have people believe, and those that do exist tend to restrict their threats to people from countries who have caused them harm or offended them in some way. Canada’s near-spotless international reputation has protected us here for a long time. Until now. On behalf of all Canadians living in Muslim countries, I’d like to thank you for pretending to stand up for a free press with no regard for our safety.
C.M.Patton
- – -
You’re doing the right thing but will be subjected to the usual opprobrium from multiculturalists and secularists–but you have a lot of support out here in the great Canadian hinterland. Tell Peter MacKay he will never be prime minister if he caves in to extremists. Why do these guys always turn into wimps once they are in power? I am not impressed. Who the hell do Stephen Harper and his cronies think we voted for? Not self-flagellating wimps.
I’m 54 years old and I may be alive when the barbarians rush in to take over my country, but at least I can remember better days when we thought our society and values were worth defending. Keep the lights burning out there in Alberta! You’re the only light we have left.
Harvey Chartrand
I admire your courage to report the news as it should be reported no matter what religion, culture or high-powered spouses are offended. The news should be reported as it happens without an editor’s spin just to gain attention, and if people are offended, that’s too bad.
Sheetal Chadha
- – -
Although depicting God or a prophet is in itself blasphemous, according to Islam, this isn’t the main concern here. It was how the prophet was depicted as a terrorist. It’s very ironic how North Americans are investigating Islam after unfortunate events like these and are making this religion the fastest growing on the continent.
Anwar Syed Ahmed
- – -
Finally, a voice speaks out against threats and intimidation. Christians and Jews have been satirized for ages in print and in cartoons, yet they do not threaten, terrorize and kill those who offend. Instead, they politely, yet at times heatedly, complain. It is about high time that Muslims the world over show the world that theirs is a religion of peace, rather than a religion based on threats, intimidation and terrorism.
Darrell Reid
- – -
Huzzah for having the balls to publish those tepid little drawings, alone among Canadian publications. They may be cartoons, but they have nothing on the cartoons that pass for mainstream Canadian media.
Arnie Keller
- – -
I have today purchased a subscription to your magazine. It’s good to see that someone in the media in this country recognizes the danger in knuckling under to the mob. It is discouraging to see how quickly the rest of the print media is prepared to compromise the concept of free speech. Everyone I have spoken to about this issue agrees with your position. You have more support than you may think.
Gordon Wilson
- – -
I support you and your magazine. I have recently returned from a tour in Afghanistan where my platoon suffered eight casualties, five of whom remain suffering to varying degrees. All Muslims I know here and abroad are very good people. Some are the best I know. The ignorance and intolerance of a few Islamic leaders are provoking the reaction to the cartoons. Simple drawings have provided extremists a fire to fan. I have first-hand experience of their so-called “Holy War” and it is about the same old things–power and money.
Mike Gauley
- – -
You are an embarrassment to Albertans, Canadians and indeed, all socially conscious people the world over! I sincerely hope you are sued for causing hate and possibly violent acts by offended citizens. If you worked in any government office in this province or country and produced such offensive pictures you would be investigated to their fullest and dismissed, which is what should happen!
Janice Blunden
- – -
Sanity and courage at last from someone in the Canadian media. Publishing those cartoons is about free speech and protecting our culture and values. Yes, it may offend; yes, it might be against Muslims’ religion, but it’s not against mine. They made an issue of it; they chose to try to force their values on us. Had they just shrugged the shoulders, the whole issue would have disappeared.
Kelly McDonnell
- – -
As a committed social democrat, I probably disagree with many of your editorial positions, but I strongly commend your decision to publish the cartoons. Your rationale is dead on: without access to the images, no one can form a reasoned judgment about the entire controversy; a democratic society depends absolutely on access to all significant information about the world we live in. Self-censorship in a case like this is a capitulation to the irrational demands of a medieval culture. Good luck to us if we take even one step down that road.
Charles Marxer
- – -
Thank you to the Western Standard from someone who escaped from an Islamic hellhole to live in a free country. The rest of the Canadian media has been so cowardly it is shameful.
Rauha Khalid
- – -
You should can your Jew publisher. In my opinion, he is a complete a–hole and he should be arrested, charged with the hate crime he has committed and deported to Israel.
Mike Armstrong
- – -
Most papers don’t print the “Muslim cartoons” because of fear, being scared of the most unreasonable “bullies.” Something else came to mind. Practically all the Jews that were sent to Nazi concentration camps in occupied Holland were picked up not by Nazis but by a police force which was almost 100 per cent anti-Nazi. Again: fear! I was there when it happened. And this is how the bullies get their way.
Evert Hamminga
- – -
McNally Robinson Booksellers is refusing to stock the latest edition of the Western Standard out of fear of offending Muslims. However, the company’s online site sells both Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I guess the double standard only applies if you are offending groups of individuals that will not respond with unjustifiable violence.
Andrew Tanentzap
- – -
Until you published these cartoons, I was proud to be living in one of the few countries that truly understood the concept of free speech. Free speech is a right we must all protect, but it also bears with it a heavy responsibility. As my husband often says, “Just because something isn’t wrong, doesn’t make it right.”
Dee MacLeod
- – -
This is a complicated issue that the mainstream media want to avoid and I think your gumption may result in serious discussions about free speech. It may cause some in the media to openly criticize those that use fear as a weapon against free speech. As a result of these discussions, the left-wing media may, in future, even show some respect for the tenets of all religions.
Undoubtedly, you’ll be vilified as a hatemonger or some such nonsense. Hang in there. There’s a silent majority that wish you well. I certainly do.
Gary Hudson
- – -
The cartoons are news and need to be reported. It is definitely not an attack on anyone’s religion. This would never have come to the attention of the world but for the hysterical reaction of some Muslim fanatics. If any religion cannot accept any criticism, then it must indeed be fragile and terribly insecure.
R. I. MacKenzie
- – -
I served in the Canadian Forces for many years and participated in “peacekeeping” missions. Ostensibly, my work and the work of my fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen/women was to promote human rights and, most importantly, freedom and political issues aside, we did the best we could. I applaud you for exercising your right to be free from coercion, duress and manipulation of the press. You can be sure my local retailer will be taken to task for his decision not to carry your magazine. Good for you and for us for having you. I may not always agree with your opinions and editorial policies but I am proud of your courage and integrity.
Dan Deveau
…it is a willing embrace of sharia before sharia is even forced. It is the renunciation of the western, liberal, enlightment values that created Yale, and an embrace of Islamic fascism and its intellectual closed-mindedness.
Absolutely.
The charges against Ezra Levant were eventually dropped. The Canadian Muslim who brought the charges had accomplished his goal, intimidation, wide publicity, causing Levant thousands upon thousands in out of pocket expense and a very long (personal) trial. There is no out of pocket expense required to bring such a charge. For that guy, putting Levant/Macleans through hell was a free lunch.
Rachel Ehrenfeld was subject to a similar attempt to use western courts for intimidation…
Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed
The more we respond to that kind of outrageous attack on our freedoms with the machinery of state (and/or, in Canada, so called Human Rights Commissions), the more common and outrageous those attacks there will be.
In attempting to undermine western “values”, soft jihad is as pernicious, in its way, as violent jihad.
That is why I (anyway) would let the Danish cartoons rest in obscurity.
If only the Yale University Alumni stops contributing to Yale Alumni fund because of this wanton willingness of the University to be cowed down by Muslims, the University might change its decision to remove Motoons from the book. Its unbelievable what our unversities have now become – they lie, cower under threat of Muslims, ready to change the history, – all this is the result of suffering from political correctness disease. Our MSM, political leaders and the academia – all suffer from PC. Among the many effects of PC are lying, distorting truth, willingness to change and rewrite history, etc to appease any section of society and especially Muslims because they threaten us with dire consequences since they don’t like truth be told about them.
Also our major unversities are recepients of major amount of funds from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to establish departments of Middle eastern studies. The academics in these departments don’t tell the truth about Islam and are apologists for Islam. Unless the flow of these funds from Middle East is stopped, we will be seeing this deliberate disregard for truth about Islam from the professors in these universities.
The western society has no backbone left to defend and uphold the the principles that made this country great and the academia, universties, MSM and the politiocal leaders are doing their best to hasten the demise of our culture.
The suicidal spiral of the West continues unless the disease of PC is treated once and for all. Let truth reign supreme, if we want to survive!!!
Things are becoming quite strange when we now allow the enemies of freedom to rule the day and the night.
Lights out for Yale.
Shh…Someone or something has awakened the beast. Quiet, and he may go back to sleep for a little longer. Shh…
So the “mighty” Islam has conquered the minds of our craven intellectuals…cowards and intellectuals are terrible at fighting wars anyway; we won’t need them when the time comes to expel the Islamic poison from American soil.
Makes as much sense as publishing Hustler magazine in braille. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea.
I hope that this doesn’t offend our peace loving Islamic brethren. Ollie, ollie okbar. Come out, come out wherever you are.
SodaJerk,
Thank you for your kind words and interesting reply. I’m not sure if I accept the validity of Yale’s proffered explanation that it removed the cartoons out of fear of violence.
As I noted above, I do think there are valid justifications for not including the cartoons in the book. But Yale has not availed itself of those particular alternative justifications, at least in public.
I find it curious that the author of this book says that she agrees with Yale’s approach. Indeed, she says that if she thought there would likely be violence she would herself censor her book. She says that she disagrees only with Yale’s estimate of the likelihood of violence, which leads to disagreeing with the decision to remove the cartoons. But she also agreed to publication of the book without the cartoons.
It’s all very strange.
The press of a prestigious institution doing self-censorship for fear of security threats? You mean the whole world cannot make fun of anything that’s Islamic? Who gives Muslims the right to enforce this gag order? Why must everyone change the rules and policies to accomodate them and their parochial views?
Great are those religions which are tolerant and allow people to criticize and then come to a self-realization of their own follies.
Incridible story admin. You just help my homework for next exam Thanks admin