Faith & Freedom
Issue date: 3/9/06 Section: Letters to the Editor
In our last issue, The Strand published a student-drawn cartoon that appears to show Mohammed (the prophet) and Jesus Christ kissing on a carnival ride called the "Tunnel of Tolerance" (you can still see it on our website, alongside an editorial called "To print or not to print?" that explains our decision to publish the cartoon).
Two days later, in response to complaints from the Muslim Students' Association and other individuals and groups, the UofT Students' Administrative Council issued a national press release denouncing The Strand. SAC also called on us to issue an apology and to withdraw the issue from distribution on campus and on the internet.
As a result of that press release, The Strand's cartoon featured in national and international media and the editorial and cartoon were viewed almost 12,000 times on our website. We also received almost 200 letters and a dozen phone calls.
In this issue, we're reprinting all of that correspondence, as well as a number of articles about the cartoon debate, including Jyllands-Posten editor Flemming Rose's explanation of his decision.
We declined to withdraw the issue, and in a special statement expressed our regret over any sadness or hurt caused by the cartoon. Our full response to SAC, the MSA, and the letters is under Editorials.
The following letters represent all of the correspondence that we have received about the cartoon, in order of date received. None of the letters have been edited for content or presentation. Some of them are clearly offensive, and for that we apologize. We hope that readers will find them informative and enlightening.
I just wanted to let you know that your cartoon comes a little late in trying to prove the point about freedom of speech. Alright! We get it! Everyone seems (everyone except your team!) to understand that it isn't about freedom of speech anymore, it's about how much respect we give to each cultural and religious group. I think your cartoon might just come across as being racist or downright stupid. On campus the problem is about how much Muslims are respected, how much Jews are respected, how much they respect each other etc. Again, WE UNDERSTAND THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAWS! That, my friends, is no longer the issue.
Well done!
K.J.W.
I was deeply saddened to see The Strand publish the Mohammed cartoons which are deeply offensive to all Muslims in Canada and around the world. The cartoons have been called xenophobic and have not been published by almost all journalistic institutions in Canada and more recently, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada even referred to them as unfortunate. It is upsetting to see that weeks after the controversy, there are people still out there who want to continue to add fuel the fire and keep the flames of anger, mistrust and misunderstanding between the Muslim community and the West burning.
The paper may have gotten away with ignorance if they published the cartoons a few weeks ago, when the controversy had just started, citing that they did not know that Muslims would be so offended. But weeks, deaths, protests later, it is almost silly and inflammatory that the editor decided to go ahead and do so. This decision so late in the game just proves that the decision to print the cartoon was not educational, but rather - confrontational.
I think most Canadians would be hard pressed to find any journalistic integrity in printing the cartoons, and would find it even harder to see how publishing inflammatory cartoons really proves the virtue of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right - it is something that should be considered based on the value of what is offensive, derogatory and hateful. What does publishing such cartoons really say anyway - that it is okay to defame Islam, that the West should be able to publicly disrespect the Islamic faith or anyone they want? Journalists have a responsibility to practice responsible journalism. Even a student newspaper should live up to some standard of responsibility - and I believe in that sense you have failed miserably. What your paper has shown however, is that you are completely unaware of and have no comprehension of the Islamic faith. You have no idea of the respect Muslims have for the prophet, and you have little understanding of why such cartoons were so offensive. If you were aware at all, I am sure you would have never printed or contemplated printing a single cartoon.
The editors of the Strand should know that by publishing these cartoons, you have done nothing to be proud of. Instead, you have deeply offended every single Muslim in this country, in this city and on this campus. You should be ashamed of your actions.
Noor Javed
I am deeply offended at the recent publications of certain cartoon images in "The Strand". As a student and an active member of the UofT community, I recognize the importance of freedom of speech BUT ALSO the responsibility which comes with it. Freedom of speech is in no way justification to promote racism, hatred or the demonization of others. Racism has many forms, whether it is in an outright eugenics movement or the usage of religiously inappropriate and culturally offensive printed images, all are equally horrific.
Kindly see to it that immediate action is taken regarding this matter.
A. Arain
Hon.B.Sc Student
President, Kids In Developing Societies
I have, for the most part, tried to stay out of discussions circling around the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons for the simple reason that I don't really know what to think of them. I cannot help but question the "sincere" intentions of newspapers republishing these images: is it really a crusade for freedom of speech or just another gimmick to get noticed? Whatever the answer you provide, viewing one of the images in your paper has indeed invoked me to voice an opinion...not so much about what the image implies, but rather the reactions of people to the image itself. It is sad that in a world already sinking in death and destruction, these images are stirring up even more violence. What I would like to ask any Muslim protesting these images is that if a caricatured image can spark such a reaction, why cannot the actual images of the injustice being carried out by certain people in the name of Islam in areas like Darfur, Sudan be denounced with the same enthusiasm? The message that seems to be going out is this: "Do not attack our religion with words, but its okay to use our religion's name to kill and violate basic human rights". I do not understand how people can sit back, relax with a cup of tea and browse through images of dead bodies and news of human beings being slaughtered in parts of the world in the name of religion, but as soon as there is an image that implies a message rather than blatantly shows the reality, the same people get out and involve themselves in riots. Are we so desensitized to the injustices being carried out around the world in the name of religion that we involve ourselves in petty matters such as mulling over a cartoon rather than taking positive action to stop the hatred? Basic human dignity and rights have become issues of the past and many have forgotten that the true essence of a human is in its "being". I find it extremely shameful that the entire world's attention has shifted to the cartoons and away from what is more important...human life. Being a Muslim myself, I am familiar with the Islamic preaching of peace and tolerance and protection of the sanctity of life. It's about time Muslims start practicing that or prepare themselves for a further onslaught of these "attacks".
I grieve.
Manal Siddiqui
Aine O'Hare wrote that the "Tunnel of Tolerance" caricature was published since independent thinking is inspired in a university environment, and "freedom of expression triumphs over all".
So are you saying that you would invite a discussion on a topic like the Jewish Holocaust? Or have you forgotten that two years ago, Jyllands-Posten itself rejected carticatures satirizing the resurrection of Christ on the grounds that they may provoke an outcry? Where was the freedom of expression then?
By choosing to publish this cartoon, you have insulted Muslims, and more importantly, the men they base their lives on. If you had understood this, you would not have accepted and taken part in this shameful series of events.
ds9vgr@...
I was on your website and unfortunately came across the latest offending cartoon. I am totally astonished and wonder what was in the editor's mind when he/she allowed the publishing of such intentional (or unintentional, I hope for the latter) hatred under the disguise of freedom of speech. Have not the protests been clear enough?
If not, let me explain once again how these cartoons are offending:
1.) Islam and as well as different sects of both Judaism and Christianity prohibit picture making, especially those of prophets or God, and definitely those of offensive nature.
2.) Prophets are sent as a mercy to mankind and ought to be respected. If you don't believe in them, keep it to yourself. Don't ridicule them publicly and make cartoons of them and hence offend others. (Your paper depicts Prophet Mohammed and Prophet Jesus kissing! Surely this is offending to others if not to you and your paper)
3.) Your paper argues that such hate crime is actually somehow freedom of speech. If so, then why can't your paper pull another stun and make cartoons mocking blacks, homosexuals, or Jews (which too is offensive). Nay, it would be shut down (which it should be). What's with the double standards?
Freedom of speech has a limit. One may freely express his or her opinion as long as it doesn't incite hatred. Let me disclose a secret. Drawing pictures of prophets ARE offensive to many!
I urge 'TheStrand' to make a wise move and remove the papers off the newspaper stands and the cartoons off the website before things get out of hand. There is no way we are going to let pseudo supporters of freedom hijack the real freedom of expression.
Adam Kothary
University of Toronto
I was insulted and deeply hurt by the cartoon your newspaper published about prophets Muhammad and Jesus (peace be upon them). I couldn't figure out one single benefit that can be achieved from insulting and mocking two of the greatest men of all human kind. I even felt more pain doing so because I realized the degree of ignorance and irresponsibility some has reached. I guess I don't need to remind you that more than 2 billion Muslims and Christians consider these two men as the ultimate role models that they should follow. By mocking these two men, you insult the beliefs and intellect of all those people. To make up for such irresponsible act, I ask you to publish an apology in the next issue of "The Strand" admitting the offense you have committed by publishing such cartoons.
Mohamed Abdelgawad
PhD Candidate, University of Toronto
Deeply hurt by your decision to print images of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). If hurting me provided an ounce of satisfaction to you and allowed you to exercise your freedom of speech then please know that this freedom came at the expense of deeply hurting the moslem community.
Farhan Malik
It is merely an act of cruelty and discrimination to even consider the publishing of such appalling and offensive images satirizing the Prophet Mohammed, and Jesus.
I quote the article entitled 'To print or not to print?' published by The Strand, "...Media should inform, invoke discussion, represent a wide range of ideas and encourage critical thinking." May I make a claim as to how this concept of ridiculing and portraying Prophets, which are followed by at least 1.6 billion individuals across the globe in such disgusting manner, invokes ANY discussion that will advance us into a world of respect, intellect, and mutual understanding. If anything, such thinking towards others and mockery of their spiritual nature and beliefs will only fuel more anger in the streets, as seen before in response to the Jyllands-Posten publications. Do we really want that?
I strongly encourage those who are responsible for this cartoon and the publishing of it to rethink what they are doing. If they think it is amusing, well as my own personal opinion and we encourage opinions, don't we? Your stunts have no meaning, no objective, and reflect no depth of thinking. I encourage you to extensively examine the topics you plan on portraying in your cartoons BEFORE you publish them. You have a gift in drawing- use it wisely without vulgarities.
D. Hamadeh
Honestly!! Someone was certainly asleep at the wheel! I'd have imagined that someone in a Canadian university AND working for a paper, would be a tad bit more aware, responsible and sound of judgement, than what you and your contributing cartoonist have exhibited.
Exactly what were you trying to achieve by publishing that cartoon with Jesus and Mohammad? (peace be upon them) What were you thinking??? Oh wait...don't tell me... "free speech". Do you really think that you are defending free speech by publishing a tasteless, derogatory cartoon on purpose? Its just appalling! Especially with everything that is going on in the world right now, did you really need to kick the dog when its down?
Free speech does not mean that you abandon all ethical discretion! I thought ethical integrity was part of the job description for someone working for a paper. Ethical reporting doesn't just pertain to reporting the truth or speaking your mind. It also includes how you do it. That cartoon has no literary value for is print worthy.
Just because you can, doesn't mean its OK or ethical to do it. If you still insist on hiding behind the sacred cow of freedom of speech, I expect you lend your support and due coverage to the free expressions of Neo Nazis, holocaust deniers, anti-semites, and the garden variety white supremacists or generic racist. Why stop there? Lets start promoting the war against the "Great Satan", and publish the calls to take up arms against the western imperial powers, and the killing of innocent people. Oh wait I've got a good one. From the next issue of the Strand lets start referring to all black people with the "N" word, brown people as "sand-"N" word" and Jews as rats or pigs (take your pick). Lets see how that exercise in free speech goes. You certainly have the right to say anything and everything you want.
Aatir Butt
I'm writing this email to express my feelings of outrage over the publication of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Although I do understand that it is entirely within the right of your newspaper to publish these cartoons as it is your freedom of speech. However, these cartoons promote hate and are both extremely offensive and hurtful to people of the Muslim faith. These cartoons have caused both outrage and anger around the world, and considering the violence that has come out of this issue it is very important to attempt to create dialogue. As a University newspaper you have a responsibility to the the University community to foster open dialogue and exchange of ideas and sentiments. Howver, the publication of these cartoons does quite the opposite, these cartoons just deepen the hurt felt by Muslims and Non-Muslims around the world. They also serve to isolate the Muslim community, and are not in any way constructive. I do hope that your newspaper will reconsider the implications of the publication of these cartoons and issue an ammendment.
Anushka Ataullahjan
Over the course of the last few weeks, much has been taking place throughout the world, in reaction the publication, and re-publication of purportedly "satirical" caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) in several European newspapers. As made obvious, such caricatures are far from humorous, and rather insulting, offensive, and mostly provoking.
While there is freedom of speech and expression, there is also freedom to live without being attacked - and on a regular basis. Muslims have been blantantly insulted, and mocked for standing for what they believe in. At least Muslims know where to draw the red line, when it comes to respecting others' religions and beliefs. Muslims have not mocked Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...etc. With your latest caricature, you double the insult - you have BOTH Prophets Jesus and Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Them Both), depicted in a disgusting way. I do not mean to offend people with different sexualities on campus, but for both Christians and Muslims, we all know that such a caricature is extremely insulting. Our prophets are divine people, who should not be depicted in such disgusting, insulting, and provoking ways.
You have a poll online, asking people whether you should publish the caricature or not - however, you have already gone ahead and done so already. Why do you mock people?
If you believe in free speech, then perhaps you should also believe that hate speech is not free speech. Free speech is a right we all have to state the truth - to promote knowledge, and to educate people. By drawing, and publishing such caricatures, you are not educating, nor promoting knowledge within people. You are not engaging people in proper thought. Instead, you are making people think of one thing - why is this necessary? We all know that Muslims have been offended more than enough...why push it further? Canada has been a very understanding society with regards to respecting the differences in religion and beliefs amongst our population. Why not continue that?
Why attack people, and lose readers? I think that The Strand's decision to publish that caricature was a blunt provocation to people with religious, as well as non-religious people with ethical beliefs.
The Strand owes Muslims, Christians, and all those who believe in common respect, a GREAT APOLOGY. I am sure homosexuals do not want to be part of a mockery of other people's faiths - for they, as well, are a minority in this society, which is being misunderstood, as well.
Ruba Ali Al-Hassani
MA in Criminology Graduate of U of T
While freedom of speech must be respected, publishing these cartoons is not a must for free speech to heard. This is an act of discrimination against the muslim population. As a newspaper of the university of toronto discrimination of this sort is very dissappointing.
The prophet is somone greatly respected by muslims all over the world and ridiculing him in a well known academic institution is extremely disappointing. Discrimination in the pretense of freedom of speech is not acceptable.
Nameera Shariff
I am writing regarding The Strand's publication of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ. As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I can only deplore any depiction of Him, even satirical, which might inflame an already sensitive situation, His face and name have been used to spread hatred throughout history too often.
As a human being who strives to live what he says about diversity, and love of neighbor, I can only deplore any pictoral depiction of the Prophet Muhammad which, by itself, is insulting to those who follow Islam.
Diversity is based on common courtesy, an acceptance of the importance of the other's belief system for the other, even when that belief system is not shared with the other. Consequent to the acceptance are actions which encourage peaceful dialogue and further understanding of the other. It is my sincere hope that this is what you and the editors of The Strand were trying to do.
The manner in which you chose to open yourselves and your readers to dialogue and further understanding of Islam was, at best, ill advised.
Fr. Bill May, CSB
Chaplain, University of St. Michael's College
I am U of T student and must say I did not expect any U of T newspaper to print the derogatory cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Alas, I was proven wrong. I do not see the purpose of printing the cartoons except promoting ill-feelings. The issue has well been publicized in the media, the pictures are all over the internet, anyone even slightly interested has already seen them or would find them over the internet.
Even a little bit of journalism by The Strand would have revealed to you that Muslims do NOT pictorially depict the prophet Mohammed, or any other prophet, God, and even Angles etc for the matter. Have you not ever wondered why you do not know what the prophet looked like?
This is not about the fact that the pictures were derogatory, that is a separate issue. It is simply Disrespectful and offensive to the entire muslim community to draw him out, give him a form , when we ourselves out of deep respect and religious rule do not give him a form.
Good job on a shoddy piece of journalism.
Anonymous
I am writing to you regarding the depiction of Prophet Muhammed and Jesus (peace be upon them) in THE STRAND on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 in a manner that I found very offensive. I am a Muslim and I hold these two men to high regards. They are not just mere men. They are messengers of God. I do not know of your beliefs and how you view them. But that does not mean that you should violate the beliefs of others and insult them to promote freedom of expression.
There is a limit to everything and there is a limit to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression does not mean to disrespect, hurt others feelings, redicule their beliefs and belittle them. You should understand that this type of manner will for surely cause an outrage in the University of Toronto environment. I never thought that there are people who would depict and publicize such grotesque cartoons just for their humour and expressing their freedoms. You should have understood that the campus environment would be disrupted after watching and hearing about how muslims all over the world felt after a newspaper in Denmark depicted Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) in a manner that does not suit him.
I want you to make sure that this type of cartoon is not again publicized to promote freedom of expression for it offends us. For surely there are cartoons that offend you. You should take care of whatever you are publishing. Do not forget that the campus is multicultural and we all share different values and beliefs. Respect their values and beliefs. Do not single out minorities in the campus just to promote freedom of expression. This type of action do not accomplish what you want to accomplish. To promote freedom of expression you should try to understand others and work together to make the society a better place to live in.
A. B. M. Nazibur Rahman
University of Toronto, Civil Engineering, 0T6.
I was greatly disappointed to hear about an on-campus newspaper today having printed not the same cartoons that have encited rage and protests through out the world, but having taken it a step further and printing a far more offensive and repulsive comic. I felt proud a few days ago to know that my university and fellow students were bright enough to know the difference between good and bad judgement. I guess I was wrong.
The comic printed in the Strand, it seems to serve no purpose except to further fuel the fires through out the world. Such clear acts of slander also are counter-productive to the principles that we as Canadians have, as well as the University of Toronto, and that is of equality. No individual should be ridiculed, disrespected or hurt for their physical appearance and beliefs. And the comic printed in your newspaper was indeed offensive and disrespectful to Muslims and people of other faiths.
So how can you justify printing such a comic? Is it your sign of support for free speech and other media around the world? If this was your intention then you also know that restarting the issue that began it all is hardly helpful to anyone. You could have just as easily written an article or a non-offensive comic that would have shown your support without causing more damage.
Whether you realize it or not, printing the comic that was printed also does not help your paper either. If anything, you've probably lost readers and your actions will be reflected in your paper's and college's reputation.
The comic was clearly targetted to those people of faith, more specifically Christians and Muslims. Freedom of speech entitles you to criticize these religions if you want. If you want to draw pictures of respected figures so be it. Countless number of people in the past have drawn Muhammed, and criticized him and it is nothing really new. The difference in previous incidents that were similar is that people justified such articles, drawings, and what not based on views, facts, and bits of knowledge. Yet the cartoon controversy is not justifiable. The depiction has no backing, no factual basic, no message it tries to convey. Are they supposed to be funny? Why not atleast try and make them funny then because they're obviously not. So I repeat what I said before, these comics are nothing but slander and insults without any basis. This is generally the act of what children do, insult others with no basis, simply because they do not understand the world and others.
I would like to mention, I do not wish to attack or remove anyone's freedom of speech. Indeed, you had every right to print that comic I assume. Which is why what you did was not wrong or illegal, but just a show of poor judgement. It was poor judgement because you have offended a large number of people all around the world, including many of your fellow university peers, and probably some faculty. It was poor judgement because you hurt not only your own paper's reputation but your college, our university, and possibly even Canada in the international world. It was poor judgement because what you did served no purpose in the betterment of our society, this university, or even your newspaper. Lastly, it was poor judgement because you, and many others around the world, have lost sight of what the true value of what "freedom of speech" even is.
So where can we go from here? The damage is done, yes. The appropriate thing to do would be to apologize for those offended, but I doubt what I say has even made an impression on you. I just hope everyone else at this university is mature enough to not condone or support such actions, especially in the future.
Anonymous
In regards to the cartoon that appeared in The Strand on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, I would like to express my deep sense of dismay that something so appalling and counter-productive could be published.
This cartoon aims to demean the values of certain members of the university community, at a time when we should be aiming to work towards understanding and respecting of the beliefs of one another.
It is my hope that more rational thinking will prevail in any future decisions about such publications.
Tazeen Siddiqui
Faculty of Pharmacy, Class of 2007
With all the controversy happening around the globe regarding this issue , people dying, buildings being burned , hatred being fueled over this issue, I really think not all thought was given the decision to print the cartoon. Yes we have freedom of speech and yes we do have the power to print but that doesn't mean we should. There are many things in life we can do but it doesn't mean it's right or we should.
Muslim religion prohibits any graphical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad so right off the bat if a person of that faith sees the cartoon they are extremely offended.
I understand what the cartoon meant and it had good intentions but remember there are some who can not see that, strictly by their upbringing. You stated that "you wanted to provoke debate". Well you should have known what else you would provoke. You can't tell me that someone involved did not know that and if no one did shame on you all. I certainly hope and pray that no one is hurt in any way shape or form. I don't think any of you could live with that reality.
Thomas
This is in response to the publication of the cartoon on Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) in Strand. This was uncalled for. This is your attempt to prove superiority of press freedom over something that people hold closely to their hearts. This only shows your contempt for other religions and races.
Ameen Ahmed
Student, UTSC
I wanted to let you know, that publishing of the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) is quite insulting to myself and the Muslim Community at large. As Muslims, we take our way of life seriously. The honour and dignity Islam assigns to the Prophets (peace be upon them all) is something that is a pillar of our way of life.
Assuming that you are aware of the protests and anger that has arisen from these cartoons, what I am telling you is not news.
It is irresponsible of you and your newspaper to invest the time, energy, and effort to deliberately insult the Muslim community. The cartoon controversy in Denmark did not emerge out of a free speech issue. Instead it emerged out of increasingly hostile atmosphere against the Muslim community in Denmark. According to the Times Online, The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, termed these cartoons as "a necessary provocation". The article further stated: "I will never accept that respect for a religious stance leads to the
curtailment of criticism, humour and satire in the press," said Rasmussen, whose centre-right minority party is dependent for survival on support from Folkeparti, an anti-immigration party." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2025852,00.html
The Danish Folkeparti (Danish People's Party), whom the Danish PM (as per above) "is dependent for survival" is a racist and specifically anti-Muslim political party; which has captured 13.3% of the vote in the most recent election. In November 2001, this party was distributing a leaflet with a picture of a young blonde (presumably Danish) girl that had the caption "When she retires, Muslims will be a majority in Denmark". Obviously, they were treating to create fear and hysteria, because this party considers it a bad thing if a Denmark become predominantly Muslim. Thus, when the Danish PM stated that such a cartoon was a "necessary provocation"; it was really about pandering to the racist voters within his country. Therefore, these cartoons were never about free speech. Rather they are the expression of hatred and racism against the Muslim community in Denmark.
Why would you support such vile attitueds and behaviour? Do you not consider it wrong to discriminate?
Furthermore, you need to ask yourself what are you saying. It is a matter of objective reality that you can formulate words and put them on the paper. But the question is: what are you using it for? That is the real issue.
By printing this material you have clearly and openly stated that expressing oneself in a manner that is insulting and demeaning to people is good thing to do. Is that really the type of world you want to live in?
Is this why freedom is so valuable; just so we go can go and insult one another and create a poisoned atmosphere? What type of society would it be if your dignity and my dignity were simply trampled upon? Is that really a good society?
By printing this material you have joined the racist and intolerant groups around the world the hide behind slogans such as freedom, national security, and the like to actually promote an anti-Islamic agenda. In a time, when the "freedom loving" West is invaded Muslim countries under false pretenses, locking up and torturing Muslims without trial or evidence, and banning the hijab - do you really think it was prudent to go out of your way to insult Islam and Muslims? If so, you really should look for a new job.
I am sure you are familiar with resume process, where you complete you give a summary of your appreciable qualities. You would not advise people to include "qualities" such as intolerance, rudeness, demeaning, racist, or disrespectful, as such qualities are undesirbale So why would you put such "qualities" on your own resume?
Malik
I am an alumna of UofT, I was class 2001. Today, I read the news about your paper had published some cartoon which some ethnic or religious group may find offensive. I just want to express my support to both you and your paper. Everyday in this society, cartoonists use cartoon to express their opinion, their view of world or whatever they wanted to express. Our media and commercials sometimes make fun of women, obese people, or certain hot topics which I am sure someone out there somewhere in the world will find offensive. However, that does not stop us from our favor to freedom of speech. More than often, we will find offensive cartoon published in Middle East media to poke fun of the western society or culture. Had there been any rally or chaos incidents from the western society due to those 'insults'? What if US president Bush gets all work up every time he got made fun of? I believe it is time to reflect on what had actually happened. For those who got all work up and tried to use rally or chaos to express their 'concerns', they should have taken a look at how many of their own who were involved that got hurt or injured or worst of all, got killed, during those 'protests'. Fight a cause that will make their lives better or their living standard better, and stop wasting time on anything but.
S.T.
Studying in Boston, I am always interested when my alma mater, the University of Toronto, is in the news. You publication was mentioned on my top source, Yahoo News, today. Congratulations! My reaction to this event, however, is mixed. I prefer newspapers to report on news, not create it. However, I am willing to concede that students' opinions, and thus publications, are in themselves newsworthy.
The Yahoo report described your cartoon as Jesus and a figure who could represent Mohummad "embracing" as their boat sailed into the Tunnel of Tolerance. This was a rather mild and misleading description of the actual cartoon. Had I not seen the cartoon, I would not know what the fuss was about. After all, a fraternal embrace between Christians and Muslims is just what the world needs right now. However, your own description of the cartoon as a depiction of "tonsil hockey" set me straight. The cartoon was not about religious tolerance but about tolerance of images insulting religious faith. One is not quite as admirable as the other. That said, I must say that I have seen cartoons and articles much more insulting to the Christian faith, at any rate, in the campus newspapers in my nine years of study at the University of Toronto.
I think your paper exercised poor judgement, but I hope neither the Strand nor Victoria College suffer for it.
Dorothy Cummings
M.A., M.Div. Boston College
SMC '95, Graduate English '97, Regis '05
I found the cartoons depicting my prophet as they did, absolutely disgusting. The Strand should retract and reprint an apology for printing those cartoons. This is not an act of freedom or free speech but an act of humility, disgrace, and be-lowering to the Muslims.
Bushra Khan
PEO
By publishing cartoons that by now known to be offensive to the faith of 1.2billion Muslims, your news paper has not only abused free speech that we Canadians cherish, but also the publication lacks any purpose other than challenging the rights of Muslim and non Muslim Canadians. We Muslims respect prophets of all faiths, Peace and Blessing be upon Them, and would never accept depictions that misrepresent any of them.
Publishing these cartoons in The Strand was particularly depressing because it is in the university setting where we would expect constructive and civil dialogue away from provocative actions against the faith of student minorities.
We follow Muhammad PBUH and depicting him as terrorist or womanizer positively implies the same for me and each and every of his followers. Prophet Muhammad was an example of high moral values that humanity should be proud with. To avoid such actions in the future, I invite you to order your free copy of book or movie about the life of Prophet Muhammad from http://caircan.ca/backgrounder.php.
Abdulrauf Gehani
Systems Administrator
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto
I was very shocked that The Strand decided to publish one of the controversial cartoon. As an alumni of Victoria College (8T8), I was very proud to cry Oggi Oggi Oi until today. I have now relinquished this pride and have replaced it with shame. Your selfish pride to prove a point will cause hurt to the world, to Canada and to the students and alumni of Victoria College. Shame on you!
Charlotte Engel
You were aware that Muslims will not tolerate images of our beloved Prophet (saw) before publishing your little cry for attention.
I hope you are well aware of what you have done.
Bye.
Anonymous
Isn't it ironic how freedom is speech is defined by the user.
The Union President wants an apology, however if he were to voice his opinions as freedom of speech the unions have in the past cited violence, fighting and inflammatory signs to serve their cause.
I did not see the cartoon with any names on it. How far are people looking into the satire?
Fact - A single Muslim can stop 29 Christians from praying. True story. No free speech for the praying people.
Yet the Supreme court entitled a Muslim to wear his ceremonial dagger and headpiece as a freedom under the Charter of Rights to be an RCMP officer.
True Freedom comes at a cost. It may hurt feelings or even take lives as history has recorded it.
A single opinion should not stop or even segregate.
Respect should be consideration among everyone. Too bad only certain people feel respect is due irregardless and not earned by an individual or group.
That goes for all.
Maybe we should stop all cartoons and editorials. Wouldn't it be a colorless world.
Should we also drive all the same color and make of vehicle? It could be pointed out that if a vehicle was made in a certain country you would offend your neighbour. Not far from the truth.
Keith Baxter
While I completely understand why The Strand chose to run the cartoon - hey, I spent three years working at UVic's student paper - I can't say I agree.
Here's why. And take this with a grain of salt. In university newspaper settings, as is often the case in university as a whole, issues like this one are often viewed as being one of "how can we possibly spit on freedom of expression?" No grey areas, just black and white.
Unfortunately in this situation, and as we're seeing is often the situation with islamic religion, what westerners view as freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, is often completely thrown out the window. To most westerners there's absolutely no way people should be killed, embassies burned, and ransoms placed on people's heads because of a cartoon. But Islamic religion seems to have no problem with these things.
That's the way it is...and likely the way it always will be. And I think, given what's been happening in the Middle East and throughout Europe, we should be less concerned about promoting freedom of expression, and more about stopping any more potential disputes and violence.
Printing this cartoon, while normally completely fine, was just not a smart move given the situation right now. And I think deep down - with my experience in student news, and the mentality in those newsrooms - you all knew that, but decided to fuck it and print the cartoon anyways. Probably not a smart move, but I'm sure you guys all know that by now..
Iain McLetchie
As the cartoon controversy takes a life of its own and that of the innocent, European media outlets have defiantly evoked the mantra of free speech as their raison d'être in response to Muslim outrage around the world. It did not take long for their spirit of martyrdom to spread to the political class of Europe as an Italian member of parliament proudly showed-off his t-shirt of the cartoon caricature of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) to the world in an apparent act of religious fervour. In the midst of all the hysteria, the editorial of The Strand student newspaper at Victoria College added insult to injury by publishing their own perverted caricature -offensive to both Muslims and Christians- under the pretence of promoting inter-faith tolerance and free speech.
Surely, the cartoon controversy did not emerge out of a free speech issue, or as an attempt to build bridges between communities. Instead, anti-immigration parties and their henchmen in the press have used freedom of speech as a smoke screen to further arouse hostilities against an increasingly marginalized Muslim community in Europe. This is the reason why most Canadian newspapers abstained from this xenophobic monomania as they assumed a principled stance against the inflammatory pictures. Although the latest on-campus cartoon caricature may seem quite benign to secular observers, what exactly makes individuals like the President of Victoria College believe that The Strand appropriately balanced freedom and responsibility in its editorial cartoon? What crosses the legal boundaries of freedom of speech? After all, it is the law that defines what people can and can't say which is in itself depended on the ideology that the people of that place believe.
From this, we can see that the reason why so many are emboldened to offend more than a fifth of the world's population through such caricatures is not because of their belief in "freedom of speech" but rather that respect for Mohammed (peace be upon him) is 'not' part of their belief system. "Freedom of speech" is therefore not the real issue but rather it is whether or not the speech is acceptable according to their world-view. So for them, it's ok to abuse and offend religions or thought-systems that differ with their view on life, but when it comes to their own way of life, "freedom of expression" doesn't exist. Besides, western societies have no shortage of laws on the books that censor speech. A good example is the historian David Irving who was recently sentenced for three years in prison for denying the Holocaust. One only needs to look at the "war on terror" to notice that "freedom of speech" is used as a political tool to express what the powerful want to say and to shut the mouths of the weak.
If the University is serious about instilling an inclusive environment on campus, it should be less paradoxical in its beliefs and learn from Islam, which acknowledges that intellectual discourse is essential in the search for truth by facilitating constructive and positive discussion while prohibiting the abuse of other ways of life. This is why Islam does not allow lying, slander, libel and the defamation of any of the Messengers of God. Furthermore, is it really a part of intellectual discourse -at a university that prides itself in possessing great minds for a great future- to use rationally redundant ways of exchanging ideas?
"Call people to the way of your Lord with Wisdom and good teaching. Reason with them in the most courteous way..." The Noble Qur'an Chapter 16, Verse 125.
Gengiz Seyhun-Demets
4th year int'l affairs student
I am deeply saddened and strongly stand against the publication of these cartoons which have a clear motive behind them i.e. insult people of what they believe. I am in favour of freedom of speech, but there are certain ways to express them, one being active dialogue. This act stands against the very multiculturalism Toronto prides upon.
I hope The Strand understands the graveness of this situation and apologises for for such slandering act .
Omair Zaman
I fully support you publishing the cartoon involving Mohammed and Jesus. It is imperative that we make a strong stand on this. Freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our value system.
They are willing to fight for their values... we better do the same!!
aalesii@...
I would like to strongly condemn the recent publication of the cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).
I would urge you to have a better understanding and be more respectful of different cultures and religions. Promoting an environment of understanding and respect on the University Campus would server the University community better.
I hope you would act on my advice and be more respectful in your future publications.
Mohammad Yakoob Shahdad
The Strand has recently published cartoons on an issue very sensitive to muslims. While freedom of speech does exist, it should be used in a positive manner. Targeting a certain group of individuals only makes them feel further oppressed and uncomfortable in an environment that should be open to different ideas and cultures.
Raza Siddiqui
First of all, I have to say your paper is less than unimportant let alone it's unworthy.
As a Canadian Muslim, I believe you've joined a failed global conspiracy againt Islam. Just FYI, Islam has grown only stronger for 14 centuries despite all conspiracies. Although, I must mention it's a shame that an academic institution is used as a spying base to try to spread hatred.
If you have faith in 'freedom of speech' I would challenge you to test your faith by publishing this letter.
Pround_Muslim@...
I am completely outraged by the cartoon that you published the latest edition of the Strand. It is obvious that you have no sense of respect for people.s sacred, and especially that of identifiable groups on campus.
I find your logic for deciding to publish this completely non-sensical. First, you indicated that your team was split over the issue of whether to publish it or not. I am quite disturbed by what logic did you think it was safer to publish it, and directly ridicule peoples ideals, than not, and
find other ways to engage in civil discussion on the issue.
Second, your claim that demonstrating freedom of speech was the reason for publishing the cartoon is such a hollow argument to support this demeaning act. You claim that you did this to reach a wide audience, and promote discussion. I wonder: why did you not write the article without actually showing the cartoon. Just referring to the cartoons or even just describing them without showing them (as most responsible newspapers have done), would have reached out to more Muslims than this. Therefore, in an effort to use freedom of speech to reach out to people, you have instead alienated a group of them by directly ridiculing them, by ridiculing their Prophets.
Thirdly, you should have known by now how sensitive this issue is for Muslims. By choosing to humiliate them, you have chosen to instigate disharmony on campus directed at a particular group, which I see as a form of instigating hate.
In conclusion, I find your attitude disgustingly inconsiderate on so many levels. I hope for the sake of the campus community that people with your attitude are never in a position to abuse them in the manner that you did.
Akram Nafee
MASc Candidate
Electrical Engineering
Sorry Folks... Just had to vote "I don't get it". Don't get the cartoon and if it is a good example of the rest of the cartoons, I really don't get what the hubbub is all about. Reminded me of a sixties type cartoon... only thing missing was the Hooka!!!
fishlady_1@...
Your well written editorial makes a good case for publication. I have supported publication of the Danish cartoons and any others since I first heard someone wanted to hide them.
The best message I've read yet: If a government or group tells you you can't publish something, you pretty much have to.
nevil@...
And so the wet behind the ears editors at The Strand have decided to take a noble stand for Freedom of Speech and debate publishing Danish cartoons that have ignited a firestorm because of their implied message that all Muslims are terrorists.
So the green editors thought the best way to do this was to publish a cartoon offensive to both Christian and Muslim communities by depicting Jesus and Mohammed in an homosexual tryst.
As a Vic Alumnus and former contributor to The Strand, I find this inexcusably naive, insensitive and degrading. It seems not one moment was spent researching the Danish cartoon controversy or the history of Free Speech. No, there was a rush to caricature.
The Strand cub reporters might like to know The United Church of Canada has sent a letter to the Islamic Council of Imams expressing the Church's "deepest regret that the name of Muhammad has been so tragically misused in the depictions of cartoons first published in Europe, but now also in Canada."
Or they could have read BBC's Paul Reynolds's essay *Cartoons: Divisions & Inconsistencies* to get background on the real reasons why 12 trivial cartoons should be regarded as inciting racial and religious hatred.
Perhaps it never occurred to the jokers at The Strand that Denmark has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and cartoons depicting all Muslims as terrorists might be seen as a message to these troops to fire at will. Or perhaps the editors were unaware that Muslims form the largest minority in Denmark and face harassment from Danish neo-fascists pushing racist immigration policies.
Freedom of Speech has never been absolute. One cannot slander or libel people. One cannot promote hate. One cannot cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. And one shouldn't make light of something as incendiary as the Danish cartoon crisis that has claimed so many lives.
It is one thing to smugly sit in Burwash Hall and joke about freedom and cartoons and sick jokes. It is another to be a Muslim in a country occupied by the armies of non-Muslim countries, to fear sudden death at the hands of trigger-happy foreigners, to risk being picked up and tortured by those promoting "freedom" and "democracy".
I suppose the editors of The Strand were unaware that photographing Muslim men in homosexual trysts was a standard torture technique of the Americans at Abu Gharib. Humiliation, intimidation, ridicule are all meant to degrade and subdue. And so The Strand's own little cartoon mocks a tragedy of human rights abuse. Did no one think of this?
History is filled with trivial incidents that changed the world. A tax on tea in Boston, an English king's petition to divorce, twelve unfunny and insulting Danish cartoons. Who is to say where all this will lead? I don't know. But I do know the editorial staff at The Strand won't be able to enlighten us as to where the future lies. They're clueless. And they're too proud to ask for direction.
Eric Wellington
Vic, 1980
The basic idea works . . the two prophets embracing, universal love . . . the tunnel of love and the kiss tilt at an entirely different windmill . .. one perception problem at a time . . . simple statements attract and inflame only focussed bigots . . .don't confuse them.
rrickeh@...
As the handshake is a standard and acceptable form of greeting, so to is the kiss on both cheeks a standard and acceptable form of greeting in the Middle East. The cartoon does NOT show Jesus and Mohammed "making out"; what it does show is them greeting each other in a unified embrace of peaceful co-existence. The swan has been a symbol of love for generations and, to further entrench the symbolism, it shows them entering the "Tunnel of Tolerance" clearly depicting the message that both Christianty and Islam can exist side by side. The true form of Islam has the same basic message as Christianty, which is to love your fellow man and accept his differences for we are all brothers. For anyone to take offence at this cartoon, clearly shows that they have missed the message entirely. The riotings, burnings and deaths over the last several days have less to do with the cartoons printed firstly in a Danish newspaper and more to do with a radical presentation, by force, of a point of view totally opposed to true Islam.
nightowl1278@...
Im going to say this in the most academic way possible, since we all are, after all "civilized" people.
You guys are morons, period.
Idiots.
A concerned student.
As a Muslim Canadian, I am infuriated by the publication of those cartoons. Not because they offend my prophet or my faith, but because they go against the hard work of so many individuals, both Muslim and non-Muslim-to encourage unity and integration rather than abhorrence and conflict; because they play into the hands of those who preach radicalism; because they are nourishment for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East versus West. For all of that I blame Jyllands-Posten and people like you. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be differently interpreted and used for vicious ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons. These cartoons including yours do not preserve free speech, they endanger it. We in the West desire Muslim leaders to denounce the racial and religious narrow-mindedness that are so widespread in the Muslim world. Let us lead by example. Take off the cartoon from your web site.
Mehrdad
Vancouver BC
I have logon to your site just to see what all the fuss is about,the picture that you printed shows two people kissing and their up in arms about it.20 years ago or more you could say they were just two people in love with a tattoo on his shoulder,how they arrived as a insult to their prophet who knows?As CANADIAS, I believe that freedom is precious,we have had a lot of people die for that right where law and order prevail, there are a whole lot of things that are very important in life that would deserve our attention other than this.I was raised as a catholic became a bahi by choice and lost soul by choice .To me religion is money as they say the golden rule to do on to others as you would have them do on to you ,nope that's not the golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rule be good or bad .Life is to precious to waste , were all way's going to have cartoonist who express their views that call freedom to try and in posse your religion and belief on other is called dictators and we all know what happens to them the fall is a short one but hard when you hit the ground.Thank you for allowing me to rant and rave lol.
Gary Martin-Gratton
It is rather disturbing that yet again, people like yourself who are in the position to make controversial decisions seem to err on the side of stupidity. While it is true that you have not 'broken any laws or university policy', you have certainly risked offending a great number of people in a time and age where the climate of acceptance is anything but receptive. We should be looking for ways to reach out
and to mend partnerships, not for ways to further erode strained relations and understanding between various religious groups. Caricaturing two of the most influential religious figures in human history was not the way to do this.
As far as provoking thought,debate, and discussion, I suppose the worldwide protests and demonstrations in response to the initial printings of the cartoons, which have resulted in lost lives, death threats, and economic hardship, were not enough. The world wide media has eaten this story up. You are simply a follower. Maybe you should have printed the cartoons three months ago. That way you could have fallen back on your 'debate and discussion' agrument, but at this point in time it is anything but thought provoking. IT IS INFLAMMATORY AND OFFENSIVE.
You ARE spreading hate. Why not print a story detailing the schism in early Islam that resulted from disagreement in the rightful succession of the Caliph? Try educating people instead of pandering to their ignorance. The majority of non-Muslim Canadians likely would not realize why this cartoon is inflammatory in the first place. That may actually get you off the hook.
Information flow and freedom of speech is a pillar of our society. But at some point decency must be as well. Next time you have the chance to do the right thing, Nick boy, do it.
Kent Bigrigg
You printed the cartoon to get people thinking, so you claim. Most people would prefer that someone did their thinking for them, particularly in the realm of religious ideology and also politics.
I just finished checkng my photograph collections. I cannot find a photograph of Jesus, Muhammed or even Mary. I am also a student of history; I can't find any historical pictorial record (except assumptions, creativity or imagination regarding the visage of those entities).
Moreover, how does anyone really know what either of those individuals looked like? Any painting or even a cartoon representation is predominantly speculation or guesswork, often based on religious propaganda or distorted historical rrecollection and recording.
Moreover, where is the evidence that Muhammed was a genuine prophet? One assumes that a person who is touted as a prophet can be accepted as being credible only if history has proven the prophet's "prophecies" (predictions) to be true. Yes, I realize that theologians can attribute other convenient meanings to the term "prophet"!
Genuine learning should be detached from speculation and emotional conviction.
Fred Dalley
Nice cartoon but it's obvious the pic was ment to get an angry reaction from muslims then your going to show everyone it not really what it seems and no one should "Jump to conclusions"
ripperanewa@...
I give my whole hearted support for the publication of cartoons mocking religious icons. I am sick to death of listening to the ranting of religious zealots, no matter the faith involved. I must add that I am particularly disturbed, though not surprised, that Muslims cry the loudest while at the same time acting in a violent manner wherever their numbers are great enough to be able to get away with it. I guess suicide bombers and car bombs are acceptable to the Muslim faith, but print a few cartoons and look out, it's demonstration and death threat time. I say to hell with all religious groups and organizations. They all deserve our greatest contempt and mockery.
Everett Mitchell
According to globeandmail.com on Sat. Feb 11, they seem to have interpreted Mr Ragaz's repsponse as follows: "He says he regrets that some people feel upset or marginalized by the cartoon but that wasn't the intention."
Is "intention" a G&M editorial slant or is Mr Ragaz lacking in logical thought. If the latter then surely it would have been Mr Ragaz's intention to publis, forseeing the obvious consequences of his decision re. "upset or marginalized" groups, in light of all the extreme response to the subject.
John Warren
The editorial cartoon about the prophets Mohammad and Jesus was a brilliant move on your part. You artfully addressed the issue of how to mock Mohammad in a way that will incite a strong emotional response from Muslims and yet not be seen as inciting hate. A simple portrayal of Mohammad would not suffice. It had to be something that would go against the sensibilities of muslims. What better way than to publish a cartoon that is supposedly about love.
There was just one flaw in your strategy. You failed to justify why you printed the cartoon. How do you intend to foster discussion and tolerance ? You have to articulate this explicitly. Platitudes and vague abstractions will not suffice. Failing to do this, one can only conclude that your motives were not sincere.
Mohammad Tariq Rafique
MASc Candidate, Electrical Engineering
I am dismayed and disappointed to discover that your campus newspaper, flourishing in the very institute that stands for civilization and the intellectual pursuit of universal ideals, would allow for copy-cat cartoons to deface it's pages.
If it is not a low-grade manoeuvre in which to raise the importance/status of your newspaper and thereby increase it's readership - it can only be interpreted as an insensitive and malicious act, especially at a time where the very notion of disrespectful cartooning is being questioned world-wide. There is such a thing as ill-timed and ill-intended, both of which are being exemplified by your newspaper.
Rather than making hasty pre-emptive attacks to assert unrestricted freedom of expression, why not engage in meaningful dialogue and participate constructively - as well as intellectually - in the current global debate on how all expression, cartooning or otherwise, must occur in a positive and respectful atmosphere?
Please hold your audience in more intellectual value and respect: not all of your readers are conformists ready to jump on the much abused bandwagon of "free speech" without intelligent and sensitive justification.
asifa sheikh
I cannot understand why you as Editor-in-Chief approved the publication of the cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).
Muslims are not against freedom of speech and expression. Both are essential for any society be it Islamic or Western.
However, I see this publication not as freedom of expression but more as racial bigotry. By presenting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who is the central figure of the Islamic faith- as a turbaned Islamic terrorist with a bomb on his head, the message is very simple- "Muslims are terrorists since their prophet was a terrorist".
The cartoons were deliberately provocative and merely reinforced the commonly held misperceptions about Muslims.
Rather than promoting engagement between the Muslim world and the West, the publications of the cartoons has pushed the two sides further away. The publication of the cartoons was racist, tasteless, and poor especially at a time when some Muslims consider the War on Terror a War on Islam.
If you would like to see lack of freedom of expression, I recommend this site:
A.B.
I find it quite ironic that so many people in this online survey have declared that freedom of the press is most important, and that is why the cartoon should be allowed. We live in a country where this supposed freedom of the press has been monopolized in certain areas by names such as Asper & Black, who are indeed quite selective of the material encased in their "free" press. This is indeed about freedom, however, let us not forget that freedom can only be extended to such an extent that it does not infringe on the freedom of another. So then, how to balance the freedom of the press against the freedom from an individual not to feel threatened by a cartoon, well I suppose that is a fundamental question.
tidge_64@...
Good one. Very funny and extremely relevant. I've e-mailed it to all my friends. As for the 61% who chose to feel offended by it, a few hours ago, they were only 20%. Looks like your site is being swarmed by the people very insecure about veracity of their beliefs. How do I know that? Well, true faith is imprevious to ridicule.
Jakub Ciring
Calgary, Alberta
Please accept this letter as a formal complaint against Victoria College's "The Strand" student newspaper. Given the fact that by now, the informed world knows that it is offensive to Muslims to have our Prophets illustrated in any fashion, the editors chose not to simply reprint the Danish cartoons that started this controversy, but to publish their own! Unfortunately, their intentions seem to either be misplaced or ill-intended. While respectin
Two days later, in response to complaints from the Muslim Students' Association and other individuals and groups, the UofT Students' Administrative Council issued a national press release denouncing The Strand. SAC also called on us to issue an apology and to withdraw the issue from distribution on campus and on the internet.
As a result of that press release, The Strand's cartoon featured in national and international media and the editorial and cartoon were viewed almost 12,000 times on our website. We also received almost 200 letters and a dozen phone calls.
In this issue, we're reprinting all of that correspondence, as well as a number of articles about the cartoon debate, including Jyllands-Posten editor Flemming Rose's explanation of his decision.
We declined to withdraw the issue, and in a special statement expressed our regret over any sadness or hurt caused by the cartoon. Our full response to SAC, the MSA, and the letters is under Editorials.
The following letters represent all of the correspondence that we have received about the cartoon, in order of date received. None of the letters have been edited for content or presentation. Some of them are clearly offensive, and for that we apologize. We hope that readers will find them informative and enlightening.
I just wanted to let you know that your cartoon comes a little late in trying to prove the point about freedom of speech. Alright! We get it! Everyone seems (everyone except your team!) to understand that it isn't about freedom of speech anymore, it's about how much respect we give to each cultural and religious group. I think your cartoon might just come across as being racist or downright stupid. On campus the problem is about how much Muslims are respected, how much Jews are respected, how much they respect each other etc. Again, WE UNDERSTAND THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAWS! That, my friends, is no longer the issue.
Well done!
K.J.W.
I was deeply saddened to see The Strand publish the Mohammed cartoons which are deeply offensive to all Muslims in Canada and around the world. The cartoons have been called xenophobic and have not been published by almost all journalistic institutions in Canada and more recently, Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada even referred to them as unfortunate. It is upsetting to see that weeks after the controversy, there are people still out there who want to continue to add fuel the fire and keep the flames of anger, mistrust and misunderstanding between the Muslim community and the West burning.
The paper may have gotten away with ignorance if they published the cartoons a few weeks ago, when the controversy had just started, citing that they did not know that Muslims would be so offended. But weeks, deaths, protests later, it is almost silly and inflammatory that the editor decided to go ahead and do so. This decision so late in the game just proves that the decision to print the cartoon was not educational, but rather - confrontational.
I think most Canadians would be hard pressed to find any journalistic integrity in printing the cartoons, and would find it even harder to see how publishing inflammatory cartoons really proves the virtue of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right - it is something that should be considered based on the value of what is offensive, derogatory and hateful. What does publishing such cartoons really say anyway - that it is okay to defame Islam, that the West should be able to publicly disrespect the Islamic faith or anyone they want? Journalists have a responsibility to practice responsible journalism. Even a student newspaper should live up to some standard of responsibility - and I believe in that sense you have failed miserably. What your paper has shown however, is that you are completely unaware of and have no comprehension of the Islamic faith. You have no idea of the respect Muslims have for the prophet, and you have little understanding of why such cartoons were so offensive. If you were aware at all, I am sure you would have never printed or contemplated printing a single cartoon.
The editors of the Strand should know that by publishing these cartoons, you have done nothing to be proud of. Instead, you have deeply offended every single Muslim in this country, in this city and on this campus. You should be ashamed of your actions.
Noor Javed
I am deeply offended at the recent publications of certain cartoon images in "The Strand". As a student and an active member of the UofT community, I recognize the importance of freedom of speech BUT ALSO the responsibility which comes with it. Freedom of speech is in no way justification to promote racism, hatred or the demonization of others. Racism has many forms, whether it is in an outright eugenics movement or the usage of religiously inappropriate and culturally offensive printed images, all are equally horrific.
Kindly see to it that immediate action is taken regarding this matter.
A. Arain
Hon.B.Sc Student
President, Kids In Developing Societies
I have, for the most part, tried to stay out of discussions circling around the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons for the simple reason that I don't really know what to think of them. I cannot help but question the "sincere" intentions of newspapers republishing these images: is it really a crusade for freedom of speech or just another gimmick to get noticed? Whatever the answer you provide, viewing one of the images in your paper has indeed invoked me to voice an opinion...not so much about what the image implies, but rather the reactions of people to the image itself. It is sad that in a world already sinking in death and destruction, these images are stirring up even more violence. What I would like to ask any Muslim protesting these images is that if a caricatured image can spark such a reaction, why cannot the actual images of the injustice being carried out by certain people in the name of Islam in areas like Darfur, Sudan be denounced with the same enthusiasm? The message that seems to be going out is this: "Do not attack our religion with words, but its okay to use our religion's name to kill and violate basic human rights". I do not understand how people can sit back, relax with a cup of tea and browse through images of dead bodies and news of human beings being slaughtered in parts of the world in the name of religion, but as soon as there is an image that implies a message rather than blatantly shows the reality, the same people get out and involve themselves in riots. Are we so desensitized to the injustices being carried out around the world in the name of religion that we involve ourselves in petty matters such as mulling over a cartoon rather than taking positive action to stop the hatred? Basic human dignity and rights have become issues of the past and many have forgotten that the true essence of a human is in its "being". I find it extremely shameful that the entire world's attention has shifted to the cartoons and away from what is more important...human life. Being a Muslim myself, I am familiar with the Islamic preaching of peace and tolerance and protection of the sanctity of life. It's about time Muslims start practicing that or prepare themselves for a further onslaught of these "attacks".
I grieve.
Manal Siddiqui
Aine O'Hare wrote that the "Tunnel of Tolerance" caricature was published since independent thinking is inspired in a university environment, and "freedom of expression triumphs over all".
So are you saying that you would invite a discussion on a topic like the Jewish Holocaust? Or have you forgotten that two years ago, Jyllands-Posten itself rejected carticatures satirizing the resurrection of Christ on the grounds that they may provoke an outcry? Where was the freedom of expression then?
By choosing to publish this cartoon, you have insulted Muslims, and more importantly, the men they base their lives on. If you had understood this, you would not have accepted and taken part in this shameful series of events.
ds9vgr@...
I was on your website and unfortunately came across the latest offending cartoon. I am totally astonished and wonder what was in the editor's mind when he/she allowed the publishing of such intentional (or unintentional, I hope for the latter) hatred under the disguise of freedom of speech. Have not the protests been clear enough?
If not, let me explain once again how these cartoons are offending:
1.) Islam and as well as different sects of both Judaism and Christianity prohibit picture making, especially those of prophets or God, and definitely those of offensive nature.
2.) Prophets are sent as a mercy to mankind and ought to be respected. If you don't believe in them, keep it to yourself. Don't ridicule them publicly and make cartoons of them and hence offend others. (Your paper depicts Prophet Mohammed and Prophet Jesus kissing! Surely this is offending to others if not to you and your paper)
3.) Your paper argues that such hate crime is actually somehow freedom of speech. If so, then why can't your paper pull another stun and make cartoons mocking blacks, homosexuals, or Jews (which too is offensive). Nay, it would be shut down (which it should be). What's with the double standards?
Freedom of speech has a limit. One may freely express his or her opinion as long as it doesn't incite hatred. Let me disclose a secret. Drawing pictures of prophets ARE offensive to many!
I urge 'TheStrand' to make a wise move and remove the papers off the newspaper stands and the cartoons off the website before things get out of hand. There is no way we are going to let pseudo supporters of freedom hijack the real freedom of expression.
Adam Kothary
University of Toronto
I was insulted and deeply hurt by the cartoon your newspaper published about prophets Muhammad and Jesus (peace be upon them). I couldn't figure out one single benefit that can be achieved from insulting and mocking two of the greatest men of all human kind. I even felt more pain doing so because I realized the degree of ignorance and irresponsibility some has reached. I guess I don't need to remind you that more than 2 billion Muslims and Christians consider these two men as the ultimate role models that they should follow. By mocking these two men, you insult the beliefs and intellect of all those people. To make up for such irresponsible act, I ask you to publish an apology in the next issue of "The Strand" admitting the offense you have committed by publishing such cartoons.
Mohamed Abdelgawad
PhD Candidate, University of Toronto
Deeply hurt by your decision to print images of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). If hurting me provided an ounce of satisfaction to you and allowed you to exercise your freedom of speech then please know that this freedom came at the expense of deeply hurting the moslem community.
Farhan Malik
It is merely an act of cruelty and discrimination to even consider the publishing of such appalling and offensive images satirizing the Prophet Mohammed, and Jesus.
I quote the article entitled 'To print or not to print?' published by The Strand, "...Media should inform, invoke discussion, represent a wide range of ideas and encourage critical thinking." May I make a claim as to how this concept of ridiculing and portraying Prophets, which are followed by at least 1.6 billion individuals across the globe in such disgusting manner, invokes ANY discussion that will advance us into a world of respect, intellect, and mutual understanding. If anything, such thinking towards others and mockery of their spiritual nature and beliefs will only fuel more anger in the streets, as seen before in response to the Jyllands-Posten publications. Do we really want that?
I strongly encourage those who are responsible for this cartoon and the publishing of it to rethink what they are doing. If they think it is amusing, well as my own personal opinion and we encourage opinions, don't we? Your stunts have no meaning, no objective, and reflect no depth of thinking. I encourage you to extensively examine the topics you plan on portraying in your cartoons BEFORE you publish them. You have a gift in drawing- use it wisely without vulgarities.
D. Hamadeh
Honestly!! Someone was certainly asleep at the wheel! I'd have imagined that someone in a Canadian university AND working for a paper, would be a tad bit more aware, responsible and sound of judgement, than what you and your contributing cartoonist have exhibited.
Exactly what were you trying to achieve by publishing that cartoon with Jesus and Mohammad? (peace be upon them) What were you thinking??? Oh wait...don't tell me... "free speech". Do you really think that you are defending free speech by publishing a tasteless, derogatory cartoon on purpose? Its just appalling! Especially with everything that is going on in the world right now, did you really need to kick the dog when its down?
Free speech does not mean that you abandon all ethical discretion! I thought ethical integrity was part of the job description for someone working for a paper. Ethical reporting doesn't just pertain to reporting the truth or speaking your mind. It also includes how you do it. That cartoon has no literary value for is print worthy.
Just because you can, doesn't mean its OK or ethical to do it. If you still insist on hiding behind the sacred cow of freedom of speech, I expect you lend your support and due coverage to the free expressions of Neo Nazis, holocaust deniers, anti-semites, and the garden variety white supremacists or generic racist. Why stop there? Lets start promoting the war against the "Great Satan", and publish the calls to take up arms against the western imperial powers, and the killing of innocent people. Oh wait I've got a good one. From the next issue of the Strand lets start referring to all black people with the "N" word, brown people as "sand-"N" word" and Jews as rats or pigs (take your pick). Lets see how that exercise in free speech goes. You certainly have the right to say anything and everything you want.
Aatir Butt
I'm writing this email to express my feelings of outrage over the publication of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Although I do understand that it is entirely within the right of your newspaper to publish these cartoons as it is your freedom of speech. However, these cartoons promote hate and are both extremely offensive and hurtful to people of the Muslim faith. These cartoons have caused both outrage and anger around the world, and considering the violence that has come out of this issue it is very important to attempt to create dialogue. As a University newspaper you have a responsibility to the the University community to foster open dialogue and exchange of ideas and sentiments. Howver, the publication of these cartoons does quite the opposite, these cartoons just deepen the hurt felt by Muslims and Non-Muslims around the world. They also serve to isolate the Muslim community, and are not in any way constructive. I do hope that your newspaper will reconsider the implications of the publication of these cartoons and issue an ammendment.
Anushka Ataullahjan
Over the course of the last few weeks, much has been taking place throughout the world, in reaction the publication, and re-publication of purportedly "satirical" caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) in several European newspapers. As made obvious, such caricatures are far from humorous, and rather insulting, offensive, and mostly provoking.
While there is freedom of speech and expression, there is also freedom to live without being attacked - and on a regular basis. Muslims have been blantantly insulted, and mocked for standing for what they believe in. At least Muslims know where to draw the red line, when it comes to respecting others' religions and beliefs. Muslims have not mocked Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...etc. With your latest caricature, you double the insult - you have BOTH Prophets Jesus and Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Them Both), depicted in a disgusting way. I do not mean to offend people with different sexualities on campus, but for both Christians and Muslims, we all know that such a caricature is extremely insulting. Our prophets are divine people, who should not be depicted in such disgusting, insulting, and provoking ways.
You have a poll online, asking people whether you should publish the caricature or not - however, you have already gone ahead and done so already. Why do you mock people?
If you believe in free speech, then perhaps you should also believe that hate speech is not free speech. Free speech is a right we all have to state the truth - to promote knowledge, and to educate people. By drawing, and publishing such caricatures, you are not educating, nor promoting knowledge within people. You are not engaging people in proper thought. Instead, you are making people think of one thing - why is this necessary? We all know that Muslims have been offended more than enough...why push it further? Canada has been a very understanding society with regards to respecting the differences in religion and beliefs amongst our population. Why not continue that?
Why attack people, and lose readers? I think that The Strand's decision to publish that caricature was a blunt provocation to people with religious, as well as non-religious people with ethical beliefs.
The Strand owes Muslims, Christians, and all those who believe in common respect, a GREAT APOLOGY. I am sure homosexuals do not want to be part of a mockery of other people's faiths - for they, as well, are a minority in this society, which is being misunderstood, as well.
Ruba Ali Al-Hassani
MA in Criminology Graduate of U of T
While freedom of speech must be respected, publishing these cartoons is not a must for free speech to heard. This is an act of discrimination against the muslim population. As a newspaper of the university of toronto discrimination of this sort is very dissappointing.
The prophet is somone greatly respected by muslims all over the world and ridiculing him in a well known academic institution is extremely disappointing. Discrimination in the pretense of freedom of speech is not acceptable.
Nameera Shariff
I am writing regarding The Strand's publication of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ. As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ I can only deplore any depiction of Him, even satirical, which might inflame an already sensitive situation, His face and name have been used to spread hatred throughout history too often.
As a human being who strives to live what he says about diversity, and love of neighbor, I can only deplore any pictoral depiction of the Prophet Muhammad which, by itself, is insulting to those who follow Islam.
Diversity is based on common courtesy, an acceptance of the importance of the other's belief system for the other, even when that belief system is not shared with the other. Consequent to the acceptance are actions which encourage peaceful dialogue and further understanding of the other. It is my sincere hope that this is what you and the editors of The Strand were trying to do.
The manner in which you chose to open yourselves and your readers to dialogue and further understanding of Islam was, at best, ill advised.
Fr. Bill May, CSB
Chaplain, University of St. Michael's College
I am U of T student and must say I did not expect any U of T newspaper to print the derogatory cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Alas, I was proven wrong. I do not see the purpose of printing the cartoons except promoting ill-feelings. The issue has well been publicized in the media, the pictures are all over the internet, anyone even slightly interested has already seen them or would find them over the internet.
Even a little bit of journalism by The Strand would have revealed to you that Muslims do NOT pictorially depict the prophet Mohammed, or any other prophet, God, and even Angles etc for the matter. Have you not ever wondered why you do not know what the prophet looked like?
This is not about the fact that the pictures were derogatory, that is a separate issue. It is simply Disrespectful and offensive to the entire muslim community to draw him out, give him a form , when we ourselves out of deep respect and religious rule do not give him a form.
Good job on a shoddy piece of journalism.
Anonymous
I am writing to you regarding the depiction of Prophet Muhammed and Jesus (peace be upon them) in THE STRAND on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 in a manner that I found very offensive. I am a Muslim and I hold these two men to high regards. They are not just mere men. They are messengers of God. I do not know of your beliefs and how you view them. But that does not mean that you should violate the beliefs of others and insult them to promote freedom of expression.
There is a limit to everything and there is a limit to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression does not mean to disrespect, hurt others feelings, redicule their beliefs and belittle them. You should understand that this type of manner will for surely cause an outrage in the University of Toronto environment. I never thought that there are people who would depict and publicize such grotesque cartoons just for their humour and expressing their freedoms. You should have understood that the campus environment would be disrupted after watching and hearing about how muslims all over the world felt after a newspaper in Denmark depicted Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) in a manner that does not suit him.
I want you to make sure that this type of cartoon is not again publicized to promote freedom of expression for it offends us. For surely there are cartoons that offend you. You should take care of whatever you are publishing. Do not forget that the campus is multicultural and we all share different values and beliefs. Respect their values and beliefs. Do not single out minorities in the campus just to promote freedom of expression. This type of action do not accomplish what you want to accomplish. To promote freedom of expression you should try to understand others and work together to make the society a better place to live in.
A. B. M. Nazibur Rahman
University of Toronto, Civil Engineering, 0T6.
I was greatly disappointed to hear about an on-campus newspaper today having printed not the same cartoons that have encited rage and protests through out the world, but having taken it a step further and printing a far more offensive and repulsive comic. I felt proud a few days ago to know that my university and fellow students were bright enough to know the difference between good and bad judgement. I guess I was wrong.
The comic printed in the Strand, it seems to serve no purpose except to further fuel the fires through out the world. Such clear acts of slander also are counter-productive to the principles that we as Canadians have, as well as the University of Toronto, and that is of equality. No individual should be ridiculed, disrespected or hurt for their physical appearance and beliefs. And the comic printed in your newspaper was indeed offensive and disrespectful to Muslims and people of other faiths.
So how can you justify printing such a comic? Is it your sign of support for free speech and other media around the world? If this was your intention then you also know that restarting the issue that began it all is hardly helpful to anyone. You could have just as easily written an article or a non-offensive comic that would have shown your support without causing more damage.
Whether you realize it or not, printing the comic that was printed also does not help your paper either. If anything, you've probably lost readers and your actions will be reflected in your paper's and college's reputation.
The comic was clearly targetted to those people of faith, more specifically Christians and Muslims. Freedom of speech entitles you to criticize these religions if you want. If you want to draw pictures of respected figures so be it. Countless number of people in the past have drawn Muhammed, and criticized him and it is nothing really new. The difference in previous incidents that were similar is that people justified such articles, drawings, and what not based on views, facts, and bits of knowledge. Yet the cartoon controversy is not justifiable. The depiction has no backing, no factual basic, no message it tries to convey. Are they supposed to be funny? Why not atleast try and make them funny then because they're obviously not. So I repeat what I said before, these comics are nothing but slander and insults without any basis. This is generally the act of what children do, insult others with no basis, simply because they do not understand the world and others.
I would like to mention, I do not wish to attack or remove anyone's freedom of speech. Indeed, you had every right to print that comic I assume. Which is why what you did was not wrong or illegal, but just a show of poor judgement. It was poor judgement because you have offended a large number of people all around the world, including many of your fellow university peers, and probably some faculty. It was poor judgement because you hurt not only your own paper's reputation but your college, our university, and possibly even Canada in the international world. It was poor judgement because what you did served no purpose in the betterment of our society, this university, or even your newspaper. Lastly, it was poor judgement because you, and many others around the world, have lost sight of what the true value of what "freedom of speech" even is.
So where can we go from here? The damage is done, yes. The appropriate thing to do would be to apologize for those offended, but I doubt what I say has even made an impression on you. I just hope everyone else at this university is mature enough to not condone or support such actions, especially in the future.
Anonymous
In regards to the cartoon that appeared in The Strand on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, I would like to express my deep sense of dismay that something so appalling and counter-productive could be published.
This cartoon aims to demean the values of certain members of the university community, at a time when we should be aiming to work towards understanding and respecting of the beliefs of one another.
It is my hope that more rational thinking will prevail in any future decisions about such publications.
Tazeen Siddiqui
Faculty of Pharmacy, Class of 2007
With all the controversy happening around the globe regarding this issue , people dying, buildings being burned , hatred being fueled over this issue, I really think not all thought was given the decision to print the cartoon. Yes we have freedom of speech and yes we do have the power to print but that doesn't mean we should. There are many things in life we can do but it doesn't mean it's right or we should.
Muslim religion prohibits any graphical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad so right off the bat if a person of that faith sees the cartoon they are extremely offended.
I understand what the cartoon meant and it had good intentions but remember there are some who can not see that, strictly by their upbringing. You stated that "you wanted to provoke debate". Well you should have known what else you would provoke. You can't tell me that someone involved did not know that and if no one did shame on you all. I certainly hope and pray that no one is hurt in any way shape or form. I don't think any of you could live with that reality.
Thomas
This is in response to the publication of the cartoon on Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him) in Strand. This was uncalled for. This is your attempt to prove superiority of press freedom over something that people hold closely to their hearts. This only shows your contempt for other religions and races.
Ameen Ahmed
Student, UTSC
I wanted to let you know, that publishing of the cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) is quite insulting to myself and the Muslim Community at large. As Muslims, we take our way of life seriously. The honour and dignity Islam assigns to the Prophets (peace be upon them all) is something that is a pillar of our way of life.
Assuming that you are aware of the protests and anger that has arisen from these cartoons, what I am telling you is not news.
It is irresponsible of you and your newspaper to invest the time, energy, and effort to deliberately insult the Muslim community. The cartoon controversy in Denmark did not emerge out of a free speech issue. Instead it emerged out of increasingly hostile atmosphere against the Muslim community in Denmark. According to the Times Online, The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, termed these cartoons as "a necessary provocation". The article further stated: "I will never accept that respect for a religious stance leads to the
curtailment of criticism, humour and satire in the press," said Rasmussen, whose centre-right minority party is dependent for survival on support from Folkeparti, an anti-immigration party." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2025852,00.html
The Danish Folkeparti (Danish People's Party), whom the Danish PM (as per above) "is dependent for survival" is a racist and specifically anti-Muslim political party; which has captured 13.3% of the vote in the most recent election. In November 2001, this party was distributing a leaflet with a picture of a young blonde (presumably Danish) girl that had the caption "When she retires, Muslims will be a majority in Denmark". Obviously, they were treating to create fear and hysteria, because this party considers it a bad thing if a Denmark become predominantly Muslim. Thus, when the Danish PM stated that such a cartoon was a "necessary provocation"; it was really about pandering to the racist voters within his country. Therefore, these cartoons were never about free speech. Rather they are the expression of hatred and racism against the Muslim community in Denmark.
Why would you support such vile attitueds and behaviour? Do you not consider it wrong to discriminate?
Furthermore, you need to ask yourself what are you saying. It is a matter of objective reality that you can formulate words and put them on the paper. But the question is: what are you using it for? That is the real issue.
By printing this material you have clearly and openly stated that expressing oneself in a manner that is insulting and demeaning to people is good thing to do. Is that really the type of world you want to live in?
Is this why freedom is so valuable; just so we go can go and insult one another and create a poisoned atmosphere? What type of society would it be if your dignity and my dignity were simply trampled upon? Is that really a good society?
By printing this material you have joined the racist and intolerant groups around the world the hide behind slogans such as freedom, national security, and the like to actually promote an anti-Islamic agenda. In a time, when the "freedom loving" West is invaded Muslim countries under false pretenses, locking up and torturing Muslims without trial or evidence, and banning the hijab - do you really think it was prudent to go out of your way to insult Islam and Muslims? If so, you really should look for a new job.
I am sure you are familiar with resume process, where you complete you give a summary of your appreciable qualities. You would not advise people to include "qualities" such as intolerance, rudeness, demeaning, racist, or disrespectful, as such qualities are undesirbale So why would you put such "qualities" on your own resume?
Malik
I am an alumna of UofT, I was class 2001. Today, I read the news about your paper had published some cartoon which some ethnic or religious group may find offensive. I just want to express my support to both you and your paper. Everyday in this society, cartoonists use cartoon to express their opinion, their view of world or whatever they wanted to express. Our media and commercials sometimes make fun of women, obese people, or certain hot topics which I am sure someone out there somewhere in the world will find offensive. However, that does not stop us from our favor to freedom of speech. More than often, we will find offensive cartoon published in Middle East media to poke fun of the western society or culture. Had there been any rally or chaos incidents from the western society due to those 'insults'? What if US president Bush gets all work up every time he got made fun of? I believe it is time to reflect on what had actually happened. For those who got all work up and tried to use rally or chaos to express their 'concerns', they should have taken a look at how many of their own who were involved that got hurt or injured or worst of all, got killed, during those 'protests'. Fight a cause that will make their lives better or their living standard better, and stop wasting time on anything but.
S.T.
Studying in Boston, I am always interested when my alma mater, the University of Toronto, is in the news. You publication was mentioned on my top source, Yahoo News, today. Congratulations! My reaction to this event, however, is mixed. I prefer newspapers to report on news, not create it. However, I am willing to concede that students' opinions, and thus publications, are in themselves newsworthy.
The Yahoo report described your cartoon as Jesus and a figure who could represent Mohummad "embracing" as their boat sailed into the Tunnel of Tolerance. This was a rather mild and misleading description of the actual cartoon. Had I not seen the cartoon, I would not know what the fuss was about. After all, a fraternal embrace between Christians and Muslims is just what the world needs right now. However, your own description of the cartoon as a depiction of "tonsil hockey" set me straight. The cartoon was not about religious tolerance but about tolerance of images insulting religious faith. One is not quite as admirable as the other. That said, I must say that I have seen cartoons and articles much more insulting to the Christian faith, at any rate, in the campus newspapers in my nine years of study at the University of Toronto.
I think your paper exercised poor judgement, but I hope neither the Strand nor Victoria College suffer for it.
Dorothy Cummings
M.A., M.Div. Boston College
SMC '95, Graduate English '97, Regis '05
I found the cartoons depicting my prophet as they did, absolutely disgusting. The Strand should retract and reprint an apology for printing those cartoons. This is not an act of freedom or free speech but an act of humility, disgrace, and be-lowering to the Muslims.
Bushra Khan
PEO
By publishing cartoons that by now known to be offensive to the faith of 1.2billion Muslims, your news paper has not only abused free speech that we Canadians cherish, but also the publication lacks any purpose other than challenging the rights of Muslim and non Muslim Canadians. We Muslims respect prophets of all faiths, Peace and Blessing be upon Them, and would never accept depictions that misrepresent any of them.
Publishing these cartoons in The Strand was particularly depressing because it is in the university setting where we would expect constructive and civil dialogue away from provocative actions against the faith of student minorities.
We follow Muhammad PBUH and depicting him as terrorist or womanizer positively implies the same for me and each and every of his followers. Prophet Muhammad was an example of high moral values that humanity should be proud with. To avoid such actions in the future, I invite you to order your free copy of book or movie about the life of Prophet Muhammad from http://caircan.ca/backgrounder.php.
Abdulrauf Gehani
Systems Administrator
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto
I was very shocked that The Strand decided to publish one of the controversial cartoon. As an alumni of Victoria College (8T8), I was very proud to cry Oggi Oggi Oi until today. I have now relinquished this pride and have replaced it with shame. Your selfish pride to prove a point will cause hurt to the world, to Canada and to the students and alumni of Victoria College. Shame on you!
Charlotte Engel
You were aware that Muslims will not tolerate images of our beloved Prophet (saw) before publishing your little cry for attention.
I hope you are well aware of what you have done.
Bye.
Anonymous
Isn't it ironic how freedom is speech is defined by the user.
The Union President wants an apology, however if he were to voice his opinions as freedom of speech the unions have in the past cited violence, fighting and inflammatory signs to serve their cause.
I did not see the cartoon with any names on it. How far are people looking into the satire?
Fact - A single Muslim can stop 29 Christians from praying. True story. No free speech for the praying people.
Yet the Supreme court entitled a Muslim to wear his ceremonial dagger and headpiece as a freedom under the Charter of Rights to be an RCMP officer.
True Freedom comes at a cost. It may hurt feelings or even take lives as history has recorded it.
A single opinion should not stop or even segregate.
Respect should be consideration among everyone. Too bad only certain people feel respect is due irregardless and not earned by an individual or group.
That goes for all.
Maybe we should stop all cartoons and editorials. Wouldn't it be a colorless world.
Should we also drive all the same color and make of vehicle? It could be pointed out that if a vehicle was made in a certain country you would offend your neighbour. Not far from the truth.
Keith Baxter
While I completely understand why The Strand chose to run the cartoon - hey, I spent three years working at UVic's student paper - I can't say I agree.
Here's why. And take this with a grain of salt. In university newspaper settings, as is often the case in university as a whole, issues like this one are often viewed as being one of "how can we possibly spit on freedom of expression?" No grey areas, just black and white.
Unfortunately in this situation, and as we're seeing is often the situation with islamic religion, what westerners view as freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, is often completely thrown out the window. To most westerners there's absolutely no way people should be killed, embassies burned, and ransoms placed on people's heads because of a cartoon. But Islamic religion seems to have no problem with these things.
That's the way it is...and likely the way it always will be. And I think, given what's been happening in the Middle East and throughout Europe, we should be less concerned about promoting freedom of expression, and more about stopping any more potential disputes and violence.
Printing this cartoon, while normally completely fine, was just not a smart move given the situation right now. And I think deep down - with my experience in student news, and the mentality in those newsrooms - you all knew that, but decided to fuck it and print the cartoon anyways. Probably not a smart move, but I'm sure you guys all know that by now..
Iain McLetchie
As the cartoon controversy takes a life of its own and that of the innocent, European media outlets have defiantly evoked the mantra of free speech as their raison d'être in response to Muslim outrage around the world. It did not take long for their spirit of martyrdom to spread to the political class of Europe as an Italian member of parliament proudly showed-off his t-shirt of the cartoon caricature of Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) to the world in an apparent act of religious fervour. In the midst of all the hysteria, the editorial of The Strand student newspaper at Victoria College added insult to injury by publishing their own perverted caricature -offensive to both Muslims and Christians- under the pretence of promoting inter-faith tolerance and free speech.
Surely, the cartoon controversy did not emerge out of a free speech issue, or as an attempt to build bridges between communities. Instead, anti-immigration parties and their henchmen in the press have used freedom of speech as a smoke screen to further arouse hostilities against an increasingly marginalized Muslim community in Europe. This is the reason why most Canadian newspapers abstained from this xenophobic monomania as they assumed a principled stance against the inflammatory pictures. Although the latest on-campus cartoon caricature may seem quite benign to secular observers, what exactly makes individuals like the President of Victoria College believe that The Strand appropriately balanced freedom and responsibility in its editorial cartoon? What crosses the legal boundaries of freedom of speech? After all, it is the law that defines what people can and can't say which is in itself depended on the ideology that the people of that place believe.
From this, we can see that the reason why so many are emboldened to offend more than a fifth of the world's population through such caricatures is not because of their belief in "freedom of speech" but rather that respect for Mohammed (peace be upon him) is 'not' part of their belief system. "Freedom of speech" is therefore not the real issue but rather it is whether or not the speech is acceptable according to their world-view. So for them, it's ok to abuse and offend religions or thought-systems that differ with their view on life, but when it comes to their own way of life, "freedom of expression" doesn't exist. Besides, western societies have no shortage of laws on the books that censor speech. A good example is the historian David Irving who was recently sentenced for three years in prison for denying the Holocaust. One only needs to look at the "war on terror" to notice that "freedom of speech" is used as a political tool to express what the powerful want to say and to shut the mouths of the weak.
If the University is serious about instilling an inclusive environment on campus, it should be less paradoxical in its beliefs and learn from Islam, which acknowledges that intellectual discourse is essential in the search for truth by facilitating constructive and positive discussion while prohibiting the abuse of other ways of life. This is why Islam does not allow lying, slander, libel and the defamation of any of the Messengers of God. Furthermore, is it really a part of intellectual discourse -at a university that prides itself in possessing great minds for a great future- to use rationally redundant ways of exchanging ideas?
"Call people to the way of your Lord with Wisdom and good teaching. Reason with them in the most courteous way..." The Noble Qur'an Chapter 16, Verse 125.
Gengiz Seyhun-Demets
4th year int'l affairs student
I am deeply saddened and strongly stand against the publication of these cartoons which have a clear motive behind them i.e. insult people of what they believe. I am in favour of freedom of speech, but there are certain ways to express them, one being active dialogue. This act stands against the very multiculturalism Toronto prides upon.
I hope The Strand understands the graveness of this situation and apologises for for such slandering act .
Omair Zaman
I fully support you publishing the cartoon involving Mohammed and Jesus. It is imperative that we make a strong stand on this. Freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our value system.
They are willing to fight for their values... we better do the same!!
aalesii@...
I would like to strongly condemn the recent publication of the cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) and Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).
I would urge you to have a better understanding and be more respectful of different cultures and religions. Promoting an environment of understanding and respect on the University Campus would server the University community better.
I hope you would act on my advice and be more respectful in your future publications.
Mohammad Yakoob Shahdad
The Strand has recently published cartoons on an issue very sensitive to muslims. While freedom of speech does exist, it should be used in a positive manner. Targeting a certain group of individuals only makes them feel further oppressed and uncomfortable in an environment that should be open to different ideas and cultures.
Raza Siddiqui
First of all, I have to say your paper is less than unimportant let alone it's unworthy.
As a Canadian Muslim, I believe you've joined a failed global conspiracy againt Islam. Just FYI, Islam has grown only stronger for 14 centuries despite all conspiracies. Although, I must mention it's a shame that an academic institution is used as a spying base to try to spread hatred.
If you have faith in 'freedom of speech' I would challenge you to test your faith by publishing this letter.
Pround_Muslim@...
I am completely outraged by the cartoon that you published the latest edition of the Strand. It is obvious that you have no sense of respect for people.s sacred, and especially that of identifiable groups on campus.
I find your logic for deciding to publish this completely non-sensical. First, you indicated that your team was split over the issue of whether to publish it or not. I am quite disturbed by what logic did you think it was safer to publish it, and directly ridicule peoples ideals, than not, and
find other ways to engage in civil discussion on the issue.
Second, your claim that demonstrating freedom of speech was the reason for publishing the cartoon is such a hollow argument to support this demeaning act. You claim that you did this to reach a wide audience, and promote discussion. I wonder: why did you not write the article without actually showing the cartoon. Just referring to the cartoons or even just describing them without showing them (as most responsible newspapers have done), would have reached out to more Muslims than this. Therefore, in an effort to use freedom of speech to reach out to people, you have instead alienated a group of them by directly ridiculing them, by ridiculing their Prophets.
Thirdly, you should have known by now how sensitive this issue is for Muslims. By choosing to humiliate them, you have chosen to instigate disharmony on campus directed at a particular group, which I see as a form of instigating hate.
In conclusion, I find your attitude disgustingly inconsiderate on so many levels. I hope for the sake of the campus community that people with your attitude are never in a position to abuse them in the manner that you did.
Akram Nafee
MASc Candidate
Electrical Engineering
Sorry Folks... Just had to vote "I don't get it". Don't get the cartoon and if it is a good example of the rest of the cartoons, I really don't get what the hubbub is all about. Reminded me of a sixties type cartoon... only thing missing was the Hooka!!!
fishlady_1@...
Your well written editorial makes a good case for publication. I have supported publication of the Danish cartoons and any others since I first heard someone wanted to hide them.
The best message I've read yet: If a government or group tells you you can't publish something, you pretty much have to.
nevil@...
And so the wet behind the ears editors at The Strand have decided to take a noble stand for Freedom of Speech and debate publishing Danish cartoons that have ignited a firestorm because of their implied message that all Muslims are terrorists.
So the green editors thought the best way to do this was to publish a cartoon offensive to both Christian and Muslim communities by depicting Jesus and Mohammed in an homosexual tryst.
As a Vic Alumnus and former contributor to The Strand, I find this inexcusably naive, insensitive and degrading. It seems not one moment was spent researching the Danish cartoon controversy or the history of Free Speech. No, there was a rush to caricature.
The Strand cub reporters might like to know The United Church of Canada has sent a letter to the Islamic Council of Imams expressing the Church's "deepest regret that the name of Muhammad has been so tragically misused in the depictions of cartoons first published in Europe, but now also in Canada."
Or they could have read BBC's Paul Reynolds's essay *Cartoons: Divisions & Inconsistencies* to get background on the real reasons why 12 trivial cartoons should be regarded as inciting racial and religious hatred.
Perhaps it never occurred to the jokers at The Strand that Denmark has troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan and cartoons depicting all Muslims as terrorists might be seen as a message to these troops to fire at will. Or perhaps the editors were unaware that Muslims form the largest minority in Denmark and face harassment from Danish neo-fascists pushing racist immigration policies.
Freedom of Speech has never been absolute. One cannot slander or libel people. One cannot promote hate. One cannot cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. And one shouldn't make light of something as incendiary as the Danish cartoon crisis that has claimed so many lives.
It is one thing to smugly sit in Burwash Hall and joke about freedom and cartoons and sick jokes. It is another to be a Muslim in a country occupied by the armies of non-Muslim countries, to fear sudden death at the hands of trigger-happy foreigners, to risk being picked up and tortured by those promoting "freedom" and "democracy".
I suppose the editors of The Strand were unaware that photographing Muslim men in homosexual trysts was a standard torture technique of the Americans at Abu Gharib. Humiliation, intimidation, ridicule are all meant to degrade and subdue. And so The Strand's own little cartoon mocks a tragedy of human rights abuse. Did no one think of this?
History is filled with trivial incidents that changed the world. A tax on tea in Boston, an English king's petition to divorce, twelve unfunny and insulting Danish cartoons. Who is to say where all this will lead? I don't know. But I do know the editorial staff at The Strand won't be able to enlighten us as to where the future lies. They're clueless. And they're too proud to ask for direction.
Eric Wellington
Vic, 1980
The basic idea works . . the two prophets embracing, universal love . . . the tunnel of love and the kiss tilt at an entirely different windmill . .. one perception problem at a time . . . simple statements attract and inflame only focussed bigots . . .don't confuse them.
rrickeh@...
As the handshake is a standard and acceptable form of greeting, so to is the kiss on both cheeks a standard and acceptable form of greeting in the Middle East. The cartoon does NOT show Jesus and Mohammed "making out"; what it does show is them greeting each other in a unified embrace of peaceful co-existence. The swan has been a symbol of love for generations and, to further entrench the symbolism, it shows them entering the "Tunnel of Tolerance" clearly depicting the message that both Christianty and Islam can exist side by side. The true form of Islam has the same basic message as Christianty, which is to love your fellow man and accept his differences for we are all brothers. For anyone to take offence at this cartoon, clearly shows that they have missed the message entirely. The riotings, burnings and deaths over the last several days have less to do with the cartoons printed firstly in a Danish newspaper and more to do with a radical presentation, by force, of a point of view totally opposed to true Islam.
nightowl1278@...
Im going to say this in the most academic way possible, since we all are, after all "civilized" people.
You guys are morons, period.
Idiots.
A concerned student.
As a Muslim Canadian, I am infuriated by the publication of those cartoons. Not because they offend my prophet or my faith, but because they go against the hard work of so many individuals, both Muslim and non-Muslim-to encourage unity and integration rather than abhorrence and conflict; because they play into the hands of those who preach radicalism; because they are nourishment for the clash-of-civilizations mentality that pits East versus West. For all of that I blame Jyllands-Posten and people like you. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be differently interpreted and used for vicious ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons. These cartoons including yours do not preserve free speech, they endanger it. We in the West desire Muslim leaders to denounce the racial and religious narrow-mindedness that are so widespread in the Muslim world. Let us lead by example. Take off the cartoon from your web site.
Mehrdad
Vancouver BC
I have logon to your site just to see what all the fuss is about,the picture that you printed shows two people kissing and their up in arms about it.20 years ago or more you could say they were just two people in love with a tattoo on his shoulder,how they arrived as a insult to their prophet who knows?As CANADIAS, I believe that freedom is precious,we have had a lot of people die for that right where law and order prevail, there are a whole lot of things that are very important in life that would deserve our attention other than this.I was raised as a catholic became a bahi by choice and lost soul by choice .To me religion is money as they say the golden rule to do on to others as you would have them do on to you ,nope that's not the golden rule is he who has the gold makes the rule be good or bad .Life is to precious to waste , were all way's going to have cartoonist who express their views that call freedom to try and in posse your religion and belief on other is called dictators and we all know what happens to them the fall is a short one but hard when you hit the ground.Thank you for allowing me to rant and rave lol.
Gary Martin-Gratton
It is rather disturbing that yet again, people like yourself who are in the position to make controversial decisions seem to err on the side of stupidity. While it is true that you have not 'broken any laws or university policy', you have certainly risked offending a great number of people in a time and age where the climate of acceptance is anything but receptive. We should be looking for ways to reach out
and to mend partnerships, not for ways to further erode strained relations and understanding between various religious groups. Caricaturing two of the most influential religious figures in human history was not the way to do this.
As far as provoking thought,debate, and discussion, I suppose the worldwide protests and demonstrations in response to the initial printings of the cartoons, which have resulted in lost lives, death threats, and economic hardship, were not enough. The world wide media has eaten this story up. You are simply a follower. Maybe you should have printed the cartoons three months ago. That way you could have fallen back on your 'debate and discussion' agrument, but at this point in time it is anything but thought provoking. IT IS INFLAMMATORY AND OFFENSIVE.
You ARE spreading hate. Why not print a story detailing the schism in early Islam that resulted from disagreement in the rightful succession of the Caliph? Try educating people instead of pandering to their ignorance. The majority of non-Muslim Canadians likely would not realize why this cartoon is inflammatory in the first place. That may actually get you off the hook.
Information flow and freedom of speech is a pillar of our society. But at some point decency must be as well. Next time you have the chance to do the right thing, Nick boy, do it.
Kent Bigrigg
You printed the cartoon to get people thinking, so you claim. Most people would prefer that someone did their thinking for them, particularly in the realm of religious ideology and also politics.
I just finished checkng my photograph collections. I cannot find a photograph of Jesus, Muhammed or even Mary. I am also a student of history; I can't find any historical pictorial record (except assumptions, creativity or imagination regarding the visage of those entities).
Moreover, how does anyone really know what either of those individuals looked like? Any painting or even a cartoon representation is predominantly speculation or guesswork, often based on religious propaganda or distorted historical rrecollection and recording.
Moreover, where is the evidence that Muhammed was a genuine prophet? One assumes that a person who is touted as a prophet can be accepted as being credible only if history has proven the prophet's "prophecies" (predictions) to be true. Yes, I realize that theologians can attribute other convenient meanings to the term "prophet"!
Genuine learning should be detached from speculation and emotional conviction.
Fred Dalley
Nice cartoon but it's obvious the pic was ment to get an angry reaction from muslims then your going to show everyone it not really what it seems and no one should "Jump to conclusions"
ripperanewa@...
I give my whole hearted support for the publication of cartoons mocking religious icons. I am sick to death of listening to the ranting of religious zealots, no matter the faith involved. I must add that I am particularly disturbed, though not surprised, that Muslims cry the loudest while at the same time acting in a violent manner wherever their numbers are great enough to be able to get away with it. I guess suicide bombers and car bombs are acceptable to the Muslim faith, but print a few cartoons and look out, it's demonstration and death threat time. I say to hell with all religious groups and organizations. They all deserve our greatest contempt and mockery.
Everett Mitchell
According to globeandmail.com on Sat. Feb 11, they seem to have interpreted Mr Ragaz's repsponse as follows: "He says he regrets that some people feel upset or marginalized by the cartoon but that wasn't the intention."
Is "intention" a G&M editorial slant or is Mr Ragaz lacking in logical thought. If the latter then surely it would have been Mr Ragaz's intention to publis, forseeing the obvious consequences of his decision re. "upset or marginalized" groups, in light of all the extreme response to the subject.
John Warren
The editorial cartoon about the prophets Mohammad and Jesus was a brilliant move on your part. You artfully addressed the issue of how to mock Mohammad in a way that will incite a strong emotional response from Muslims and yet not be seen as inciting hate. A simple portrayal of Mohammad would not suffice. It had to be something that would go against the sensibilities of muslims. What better way than to publish a cartoon that is supposedly about love.
There was just one flaw in your strategy. You failed to justify why you printed the cartoon. How do you intend to foster discussion and tolerance ? You have to articulate this explicitly. Platitudes and vague abstractions will not suffice. Failing to do this, one can only conclude that your motives were not sincere.
Mohammad Tariq Rafique
MASc Candidate, Electrical Engineering
I am dismayed and disappointed to discover that your campus newspaper, flourishing in the very institute that stands for civilization and the intellectual pursuit of universal ideals, would allow for copy-cat cartoons to deface it's pages.
If it is not a low-grade manoeuvre in which to raise the importance/status of your newspaper and thereby increase it's readership - it can only be interpreted as an insensitive and malicious act, especially at a time where the very notion of disrespectful cartooning is being questioned world-wide. There is such a thing as ill-timed and ill-intended, both of which are being exemplified by your newspaper.
Rather than making hasty pre-emptive attacks to assert unrestricted freedom of expression, why not engage in meaningful dialogue and participate constructively - as well as intellectually - in the current global debate on how all expression, cartooning or otherwise, must occur in a positive and respectful atmosphere?
Please hold your audience in more intellectual value and respect: not all of your readers are conformists ready to jump on the much abused bandwagon of "free speech" without intelligent and sensitive justification.
asifa sheikh
I cannot understand why you as Editor-in-Chief approved the publication of the cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).
Muslims are not against freedom of speech and expression. Both are essential for any society be it Islamic or Western.
However, I see this publication not as freedom of expression but more as racial bigotry. By presenting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who is the central figure of the Islamic faith- as a turbaned Islamic terrorist with a bomb on his head, the message is very simple- "Muslims are terrorists since their prophet was a terrorist".
The cartoons were deliberately provocative and merely reinforced the commonly held misperceptions about Muslims.
Rather than promoting engagement between the Muslim world and the West, the publications of the cartoons has pushed the two sides further away. The publication of the cartoons was racist, tasteless, and poor especially at a time when some Muslims consider the War on Terror a War on Islam.
If you would like to see lack of freedom of expression, I recommend this site:
A.B.
I find it quite ironic that so many people in this online survey have declared that freedom of the press is most important, and that is why the cartoon should be allowed. We live in a country where this supposed freedom of the press has been monopolized in certain areas by names such as Asper & Black, who are indeed quite selective of the material encased in their "free" press. This is indeed about freedom, however, let us not forget that freedom can only be extended to such an extent that it does not infringe on the freedom of another. So then, how to balance the freedom of the press against the freedom from an individual not to feel threatened by a cartoon, well I suppose that is a fundamental question.
tidge_64@...
Good one. Very funny and extremely relevant. I've e-mailed it to all my friends. As for the 61% who chose to feel offended by it, a few hours ago, they were only 20%. Looks like your site is being swarmed by the people very insecure about veracity of their beliefs. How do I know that? Well, true faith is imprevious to ridicule.
Jakub Ciring
Calgary, Alberta
Please accept this letter as a formal complaint against Victoria College's "The Strand" student newspaper. Given the fact that by now, the informed world knows that it is offensive to Muslims to have our Prophets illustrated in any fashion, the editors chose not to simply reprint the Danish cartoons that started this controversy, but to publish their own! Unfortunately, their intentions seem to either be misplaced or ill-intended. While respectin
