2) No more so than many other “cartoons”, movies and other works of art about pretty well every other groups out there. The bomb in the turban was just cover for some peoples theocratic objectives evidenced by his extensive quotation of scripture in the complaint. The fact that these particular cartoons were singled of all the other works suggests pretty strongly that some just dont like their prophet depicted–which is not a valid basis for restricting free expression.

3) Yeah you’re a pretty PC bunch around here who seem to want to legislate good manners. Forgive me if I prefer freedom and choice.

LawIsCool:
1) We’ve addressed this before, we use the reasonable foreseeability test in Canada:

In other words, in order to transgress s. 319(1), one need not have intentionally promoted hatred. Neither must the communicating statements have been intended for a public audience. All that is required is that the accused actually succeeded in inciting hatred which was “likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

2) Perhaps cover for some, but by Canadian law and the interpretation of others, it still stands. Keep in mind that those that took offence to simple depiction do so irrespective of context, and would have been just as offended had it been a positive portrayal. The specific objectional points raised previously is what Canadian law takes issue with.

3) We don’t want to do anything. The law as it stands does have a position on this and has taken similar actions to protect other vulnerable minorities in the past, and these powers will likely be expanded in the future, especially given the characteristics of the debate surrounding this case. Freedom of speech in Canada is far from absolute.

We invite you to read some of our many posts on this and related subjects, and you will find we have addressed nearly every concievable issue you can raise (which is why we have nothing more to say on it for now).

And regarding “have been construed by members of the public as a call to violence” that is hysterical and reminds me of a Simpsons episode. However, yes, I guess you and Richard Warman are “members of the public”.

LawIsCool:
This is incorrect. The complaint against Maclean’s has been backed by every major organization of the community in question, representing well over 90% of their population.

At no point has a remedy of monetary damages been raised (to our knowledge), and all indications from the complainants seem to suggest that there will be an overall net loss monetarily from this process, irrespective of the outcome.

And we have nothing to do with Mr. Warman, though we would love to speak to him. The members of the public in question include those that actually called for a genocide of Muslim Canadians on the Western Standard blog, in response to Steyn’s work,

…Muslims have to be converted to Christianity or killed if we are to survive.

Does Ms. Repo know where the phrase “pound of flesh” originates?

LawIsCool: Well, we know that it’s from Merchant of Venice. But you’re more than welcome to contact her and ask her, she requested her email be posted. We cannot comment on her work beyond that.

We did not feel that particular statement was appropriate though and have since removed it.

Ive heard this silly argument before–that the different reaction in the two cases proves prejudice in Canadian society against Muslims. It begs the question that the three incidents are comparable in all other ways. Did Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn praise the mass extermination of Muslims? No. Did Ezra Levant do anything at all other than refuse to adhere to someone elses religious theology? No. Did Mark Steyn make clear that his comments should not be taken as a blanket condemnation of all Muslims? Yes. That is half of why there has been such a different reaction. Levants only “crime” is publishing some mild cartoons no more offensive than your standard episode of Family Guy. Steyns polemic has been blown out of proportion by his detractors through the use of out of context quotes and ignoring his qualifications and caveats. Ahenakew on the other hand praised Hitler for murdering millions of human beings. They arent even in the same league.

The other thing that separates the three incidents is that David Ahenekew was tried under the Criminal Code with all the procedural protections that entails–the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the requirement of the consent of the Attorney General, and the requirement that he actually (rather than likely) incited hate. Levant and Steyn on the other hand are being tried by quasi-judicial tribunals, with a civil standard, no presumption of innocence, and all that is required is that they “likely” exposed people to hatred. Therein lies the other half of the different reaction.

Another reason why there has been more reaction this time than there has been previously is that Levant and Steyn are high profile individuals who have been complaining about the whole process thus thrusting it into the spotlight. The author is comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though.

For the record I dont think David Ahenakew should be prosecuted either way. The public humiliation he has suffered is punishment enough, and given the limited number of people who actually heard his words I have my doubts that many more people hate Jews as a consequence. If there is one thing I agree with the author on its that “offensive ideas and concepts” should be punished through “social and political [consequences]” except in the most egregious instances.