Mohammed cartoons about spreading hate
Dear Editors,
RE: “Depicting Prophet the real issue” (Journal, Feb. 14, 2006), “AMS’s motion 14 censorship” (Journal, Feb. 10, 2006).
One of the most intriguing things about the fallout from the cartoon riots is the fact that both sides of the argument have highlighted the fact that these are depictions of the Prophet Mohammed and that, regardless of intention, it is Islamically impermissible to draw pictures of him.
Letter writer Alan Brown correctly points out that that is a weak argument against the cartoons at best. Given Denmark’s track record on issues relating to multiculturalism, it’s highly unlikely that the non-Muslim cartoonists would have even known about Muslim rulings on such matters. In any case, that is not the central to the issue, as Brown asserts.
The cartoons themselves, banal and unoriginal as they are, do nothing less than promote hate. The very fact that these cartoons are so unimaginative is proof that it was never the intent of the editors of Jyllands-Posten to foster debate. Rather, the purpose of these cartoons was clearly to inflame the already rampant Islam-phobia in Denmark. You can’t be more explicit in condemning all 1.3 billion followers of a religion as terrorists than by portraying the leading figure of that religion with a bomb for headgear. It just doesn’t get more obvious. And that is the crux of the matter: the fact that the paper decided to lambaste all Muslims, from Omar Khayyam to Muhammad Ali to Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens), as murderers.
Perhaps it takes having to be a hate victim to truly comprehend the personal, emotional, and social implications of these cartoons, but that does not give anyone the freedom to condone the hate expressed with such loving detail in the caricatures. Free speech, while it does protect right to offend, does not protect the “right” to promote hate. Anti-hate laws are well documented here in Canada, so for Adèle Mercier to suggest that this is simply a matter of “perceptions of offence” is ridiculous.
This is not about giving mere offence. This is about spreading hate.
Fathima Cader
ArtSci ’07
Respecting the legacy of Queen’s
Dear Editors,
RE: “AMS elections nostalgia” (Journal, Feb. 2, 2006).
I found the article written about the election of the Frankson-Lefaivre-Paul team while doing an Internet search the other day. It is amazing to me that there would continue to be interest in the accomplishments of an AMS executive team from a decade ago, but on further reflection it’s not that hard to see why our term in office would remain so interesting to current-day Queen’s students.
Quite aside from the fact that I was the first Black person to serve a term as AMS President, our team led an istration that achieved several goals in the interest of social improvement to the campus. Each member of the executive has particular achievements that stand out among the many projects we completed.
VP (Operations) Chris Lefaivre renewed the popular Bus-It program and completed the renovation of the Skylight Lounge, at that time an abandoned campus cafeteria, into the space that now houses the Common Ground, [Destinations and The Green Room]. VP (University Affairs) Annette Paul opened the AMS Foodbank and did more to strengthen the role of the VPUA within the governance of the AMS than any person before or since. And I led the AMS Assembly-sponsored Robert Sutherland Task Force, which eventually pressured the Board of Trustees into renaming the JDUC Billiards Room after the University’s first graduate of colour, its first major benefactor and Upper Canada’s first Black lawyer.
Particularly during Black History Month, it’s important to recognize the important historic achievements of Black students at Queen’s.
It should also be noted that Team FLP (how I chuckled when I saw that … no one used acronyms in our day) won an election that saw 35 per cent voter turnout, one of the highest in the country that year. Can Queen’s students still claim that level of involvement in student votes? The other point worthy of note is that with myself and Annette, our executive team was the first ever elected with two people of colour on it.
Queen’s has changed a lot since my days as a student, but I hope that as an institution and as a body of students people never forget their past. Team Frankson-Lefaivre-Paul made history, and I hope that students at Queen’s continue to respect and honour its legacy.
Greg Frankson
Arts ’98, Ed ’99
Queen’s University Council Representative to the Alumni Assembly
AMS President 1996-97
Offence no reason for censorship of cartoons
Dear Editors,
I hadn’t read the Queen’s Journal in years. This week, I picked up the Valentine’s Day issue, by chance, and read some of the letters ing self-censorship to avoid risking offence to others. I felt compelled to write a letter.
Beyond the extremist Muslims marching in the streets and burning embassies, we also have moderate Muslims telling non-Muslims that cartoons that depict Mohammed shouldn’t be published because they “offend” their religious sensitivities.
I am a grad student geologist. My research is essentially part of the evidence, albeit a small part of the whole, that the earth is quite old. What is the relevance of this to free speech in the face of religious sensitivities? My research is quite offensive to creationists (those who believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old) and is considered quite immoral by many fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim, enough to send me to “hell” as a non-believer. Shall I not publish my work because it offends or might be considered inflammatory? Should I include a chapter in my thesis with a creationist interpretation? Even better, should we close departments down, such as astrophysics, geology, biology, etc., because their entire existence is an offence to people with certain religious views? Any reasonable person knows what the answer to that should be.
What we are seeing in the world today is an active war on rationality and critical thought. Indeed, it is no surprise that the Roman Catholic Church has issued a statement ing the Muslim position: “freedom of thought or expression … cannot imply a right to offend the religious sentiments of believers.” The Christian right in the United States is complicit in this as well, completely ignoring the overwhelming bodies of evidence ing evolution and human-induced global warming because they do not fit with a created and static earth and no evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. We must always that a major part of religion is to provide a framework from which others can be judged, but, in great hypocrisy, their own belief systems are above reproach because it might “offend.”
The idea that I shouldn’t be able to publish an image of Mohammed, even a benign one, is akin to me not being able to publish scientific material because it conflicts with religious dogma or tradition. I have the right to criticize and express that criticism. If that includes cartoons, then that’s the form it will take.
Editors: I suggest you publish the cartoons that aren’t so inflammatory, which most are, just to show that much of the brouhaha is nothing more than people looking for an excuse to complain and feel persecuted.
Mike Johnson
PhD Candidate, Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering
Harper’s cabinet good for Canada
Dear Editors,
RE: “Harper’s cabinet an insult to democracy” (Journal, Feb. 17, 2006).
The flawed analysis of the new Conservative cabinet has spurred me to write in and correct some misperceptions presently being spun in the media. The [editorial] in question either ignores the political precedents of our Canadian democratic system or is clouded by a deep-seated disdain for the Conservatives. Whatever the case, let me look at the aforementioned examples of Emerson, Fortier and Harris to set the record straight as to how Harper’s cabinet is not only in line with Canadian politics and Conservative policy but is also good for Canada.
First off, let us be clear. David Emerson had every right to cross the floor to the Conservatives and does not need to resign his seat. Of the 166 MPs who have crossed the floor since 1920, not one has ever had to resign his or her seat; why should Emerson be the only exception? Of course the Conservatives were upset when Stronach defected to the Liberals. However, Stephen Harper has never favoured legislation to prevent MPs from crossing the floor and he reiterated this belief during the second English leaders debate of the 2006 election. Emerson’s defection, unlike Stronach’s, was not fuelled by political ambitions or nefarious motives. He did not change parties to become a leadership contender nor did he do so to prop up a failing government. While he may be politically naïve, he is wholly unpartisan. Stronach’s true motives, on the other hand, will be realized when she declares her intention to lead the Liberal party in the near future.
Secondly, Michael Fortier’s appointment to the Senate provides the new government with needed cabinet representation from the second largest city in Canada. While the Conservatives’ plan to create an elected Senate, initiating such reform will not happen overnight. In the meantime, Senate vacancies need to be filled. Appointing senators to cabinet is nothing new. Trudeau did this when his party failed to elect any MPs from Alberta. It is rare that any party can elect from every province or region, appointing senators helps fill a representation void.
Lastly, the argument against former Harris ministers occupying positions in the Conservative cabinet disturbs me. While you may believe that Harris damaged Ontario, many others believe that he helped the province by growing its economy, improving its infrastructure, and creating over one million new jobs. Due to his experience in Ontario, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has the ability to transfer these accomplishments to the federal level and improve the lives of Canadians. The past Chrétien/Martin istrations made brutal cuts to Canadian social programs throughout the 1990s. Jim Flaherty and the Conservatives have vowed not to follow a similar draconian path and have pledged to reverse the damage inflicted on Canadians by the Liberals.
Jordan Enns
ArtSci ’06
Balanced picture of Coke’s record falls flat
Dear Editors,
RE: “QUAKC hosts anti-Coke speakers” (Journal, Feb. 17, 2006).
While reading the slew of articles published in the Journal regarding the Killer Coke campaign, I was shocked to see that none of the wealth of evidence contradicting the claims of QUAKC was presented, despite being readily available. While the allegations are extremely serious, numerous trade union groups, judicial investigations, and audits have found that Coca-Cola Ltd. did not intimidate its Colombian workers as QUAKC contends, nor is it responsible for low groundwater reserve levels in drought-stricken regions of India. Furthermore, many of the statements made by Killer Coke campaigners are beyond absurd, including “they began to use [Coca-Cola] on their crops because it was cheaper than pesticide.” It’s saddening that a publication of the Journal’s caliber would not look at the facts; including freely available statistics that refute claims that Coke is an evil corporation, slaughtering workers and causing villages to go thirsty. Even more alarming is the more general trend at Queen’s of students jumping on trendy, edgy social issues campaigns that present distorted facts, rely on faulty logic, and make little difference to the oppressed masses, resulting in a poverty of well-reasoned thought.
Beyond the issue of corporate responsibility, we should objectively look at what the exclusivity agreement has given Queen’s. Over the 10-year period, Queen’s receives $5.5-million, a significant portion of which goes to fund social issues, artistic, and community groups on campus. Without an exclusivity agreement, Coke would likely still be present on campus as a brand and generating revenue for Coca-Cola Ltd., and Queen’s would receive nothing in return. It is unfortunate that Coca-Cola seems to be the most recent target of the anti-globalization and anti-corporate pop culture that gives its subscribers an opportunity to present shocking, but often over-stated or unfounded, claims against the evil corporate target of the day. Starbucks, McDonald’s, and now Coke have been tried, found guilty, and executed in the court of public opinion without the all the facts being presented, and its accs congratulated and celebrated as social issues activists for highlighting sham claims. Shame on QUAKC and the Journal for not presenting a fair and balanced picture of Coke’s record, and Queen’s students for subscribing to the latest fad in the anti-corporate pop culture.
Eric A. Lavallee
ArtSci ’07
Robert Sutherland Room not great enough tribute
Dear Editors,
I am not familiar with the recent publications of this paper, as I have become increasingly inured to its less than inspiring content. Nevertheless, I would like to take this opportunity to replay what may or not be a broken record that must necessarily be heard, especially as it is Black History Month. The broken record I play refers to the ironic and disturbing juxtaposition of Sir John A. MacDonald Hall, the building which houses Queen’s University’s law school, and the Robert Sutherland room, the small, bare upper room floor of the JDUC. If the University executive ever wishes to realize their ambitions of a Queen’s University that is viewed as inclusive and multicultural as opposed to exclusive and homogenized, then it must address this juxtaposition sooner rather than later. Sir John A. MacDonald Hall stands as a paradoxical monument to both the racist policies of Canada’s first prime minister and the use of jurisprudence as a means of upholding fundamental human rights—like freedom from racial and ethnic discrimination. The Robert Sutherland room meanwhile sits quietly in obscurity as a token tribute to the accomplishments of Robert Sutherland. Sutherland, a man of Jamaican heritage—big ups—became Upper Canada’s first Black university graduate when he graduated from Queen’s in 1852. After becoming the first black lawyer to be called to the bar in Upper Canada in 1855, upon his death in 1878 Sutherland donated his entire estate to Queen’s University, and helped rescue the school from the financial troubles it suffered from at the time. While connections between financial patronage and nepotism may have facilitated such a shameful reminder of the University’s priorities and ignorance, it is incumbent upon the University executive to rectify this problem as soon as possible. Otherwise, history, posterity and the University’s image are liable to suffer the vices of ignorance.
Aaron Haddad
ArtSci ’08
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].