At Home in Hespeler

Back in 2006, when Muslims were rioting and threatening people who dare publish a few cartoons, the Toronto Sun ran a laughable justification of why the cartoons that caused all the trouble was not sufficiently newsworthy to print. Since the link is now dead, I will reprint the entire article below. Meanwhile, a snippet:

The real issue here is not about a weak or fearful press becoming “more responsive to Muslim sensitivities than to truth or the concerns of any other group,” as Peter puts it, or about pandering to any segment of society.

Rather, it is about cultural sensitivity, social responsibility and common sense. Freedom of speech is not and never has been an absolute…

While we are at it, why not publish cartoons ridiculing
the Holocaust (oh, wait, they’re already doing that) or racist cartoons to delight the heart of a Klansman?

…there is a world of difference between discussion and debate and engaging in sweeping generalizations and racist stereotyping.

Just as there is a difference between responsibility and sensitivity, and, as Peter put it, “hypocrisy and cowardice.”

So, now that the Sun has a policy on controversial cartoons, why is this cartoon on page 36 of today’s Toronto Sun (and reprinted on their website)?

New York Times cartoon

As the accompanying Sun story notes, many are calling the cartoon racist:

Civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton called the cartoon “troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.”

So the question is, why are the Toronto Sun now publishing “racist cartoons to delight the heart of a Klansman”?

********************

Racist cartoons? No thanks
Our Editor?in?chief explains to Peter Worthington why we won’t
gratuitously insult Muslims
By JIM JENNINGS

Peter Worthington, founding editor of the Sun, wrote yesterday in this space about the spontaneity (or lack thereof) of the riots in Europe and Asia over the publication of editorial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

He went on to suggest that the media and politicians “go to absurd lengths” not to offend the Muslim community for “fear” of just such a reaction.

As the Editor?in?chief of the Sun, I would argue that this is so far from the truth, that it qualifies as absurd. Peter is most likely correct that the size and ferocity of the crowds were fuelled by outside forces.

I would suggest that one of those forces was the media. Remember that these cartoons, initially published on Sept. 30, drew protests long before those of the past week.

But they were smaller and went largely unnoticed. In fact, the size and anger of the latest protests seem to have grown in direct correlation to media exposure, particularly when other newspapers in Europe reprinted the offending cartoons.
Peter’s argument goes completely off the rails when he attempts to paint the entire Muslim community with an oversized brush. Generalizing about the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims based on the actions of a few thousand protesters is ludicrous. One doesn’t have to look very hard to find Muslims ?? prominent or otherwise ?? who condemn acts of terrorism.

The days following the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11 saw vigils condemning this atrocity held around the world. People of all faiths came together to pray.

In Canada and Syria, in the U.S and Iran, in Denmark and Egypt, we all mourned the dead and condemned an unthinkable act. Now is not the time to forget that innocent Muslims died in 9/11 along with Christians and Jews and that the main victims of Islamic terrorism today are Muslims.

The real issue here is not about a weak or fearful press becoming “more responsive to Muslim sensitivities than to truth or the concerns of any other group,” as Peter puts it, or about pandering to any segment of society.

Rather, it is about cultural sensitivity, social responsibility and common sense. Freedom of speech is not and never has been an absolute. “The most stringent protection of free speech would not,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, “protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre.”

This right carries with it a need to be responsible for one’s actions. Garry Trudeau, the Pulitzer Prize?winning cartoonist and creator of Doonesbury, sums it up best: “Just because a society has almost unlimited freedom of expression doesn’t mean we should ever stop thinking about its consequences in the real world.” Exactly.

Unless he lacked all understanding of his audience, it’s hard to imagine that Flemming Rose, the editor of Jyllands?Posten who originally solicited and published these cartoons, did not foresee the anger they would provoke.

Then again, he announced yesterday he’s now willing to publish cartoons ridiculing the Holocaust, commissioned by an Iranian newspaper. One has to ask ?? what is he thinking?

Let’s change the visual for a moment. One of the cartoons basically portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.
So, how would a Catholic react to a cartoon of Christ sexually abusing a child, published at the height of the controversy about Catholic priests sexually abusing boys?

Think about that. While we are at it, why not publish cartoons ridiculing the Holocaust (oh, wait, they’re already doing that) or racist cartoons to delight the heart of a Klansman?

Newspapers have an obligation to their communities to inform, entertain, educate and explain, to place events in context, in such a way as to make them not only understandable, but useful. Newspapers also have a duty to provoke and challenge ?? to act as a conduit for discussion and debate. But there is a world of difference between discussion and debate and engaging in sweeping generalizations and racist stereotyping. Just as there is a difference between responsibility and sensitivity, and, as Peter put it, “hypocrisy and cowardice.”

Just because you can do something doesn’t always mean you should do it.

Brian Gardiner Uncategorized