CLIPPING: Menzies on free speech and not publishing cartoons

It's a question of responsibility

Peter Menzies
Calgary Herald

Thursday, February 16, 2006

I can recall only one time when I felt threatened due to a cartoon.

It was a few years back around Easter when I was bombarded with
correspondence -- mostly from the Jewish Defence League.

Johnny Hart, author of B.C., had penned several frames about Easter.
A devout Christian and one of the world's most read syndicated
cartoonists, Hart was trying to draw a bridge between Judaism and
Christianity by depicting a menorah morphing into a cross.

Not only was the subjugation of the menorah by the cross insulting,
Christians can also easily forget that Easter is not a happy time for
Jews whose ancestors were persecuted by those who blamed them for
Christ's death. The comic caused offence. And when offence is caused,
when people are provoked, they have a right to their own freedom of
expression.

Much of the JDL correspondence was sinister. One correspondent
offered to torch my house. A few mentioned they knew where I lived.
Other papers were similarly besieged and Hart was cancelled by, among
others, the L.A. Times. Some publishers cited the Easter comic;
others, their view that Hart was too "overtly Christian."

Did we have the right to publish the comic? Absolutely. Did people
have a right to voice their outrage? Of course. Would we fire a
cartoonist for being "overtly Christian" while tolerating those who
are "overtly secular?" No.

Was the cartoon a mistake? Yes, primarily because it failed to
communicate properly the intent of the message and caused hurt when
none was intended. In that sense, it was a poor piece of commentary,
but hardly, as some would suggest, "hate literature." Hart also was
accused of hate by some Muslims in November 2003 for his use of a
crescent moon on an outhouse.

When it comes to free speech, I am a hard liner. Provided there is no
call for harm to people or property and no libel, people have the
right to express opinions that others find offensive.

Despite the current post-modern drift, tolerance can only be a virtue
when it is exercised in the face of that which offends.

To consider ourselves tolerant when we are surrounded only by the
acceptable is completely without virtue. Today, there is no shortage
of those who preach tolerance while simultaneously calling for a
broader definition of hate literature, fines and jail sentences.

They believe the best way to build a tolerant society is by neutering
its freedom to offend, a line of thinking that concludes with the idea
that if we prosecute those who are offensive we will somehow be
better, more tolerant liberal democrats.

Equating "insult" with "hate" drastically overstates the former and
horribly diminishes the meaning of the latter. To do so only makes us
less, rather than more virtuous, it also builds a society that is less
free.

I am opposed to the state jailing people or mobs killing them because
they have caused offence. I'm sure there's something in the Herald
every day that offends somebody and that frequently those same
viewpoints are sources of inspiration to others.

And I object to any legislation restricting freedom of the press. I
think that if we are truly virtuous, tolerant people we can accept
that the behaviour and opinions of others will from time to time
cause us offence, whether it is regarding Jesus as a con artist (Da
Vinci Code?) or some second tier Danish publication depicting The
Prophet.

Yet freedom must be exercised responsibly. I am free, for instance,
to strip to my Fruit of the Looms and wander the streets uttering
profanities now that the Supreme Court has eradicated the concept of
community standards. But that doesn't mean it would be wise.

Similarly, the Herald should be free to publish items involving the
aforementioned blasphemies. But I certainly don't think it would be
mature of us to publish the Danish cartoons, the Piss Christ or the
anti-Semitism of the Arab press. This is because:

a) Our readers expect us to cover news, not insert ourselves into
stories,

b) We have no interest in gratuitously insulting the faithful. We
believe in words and we believe in meaning,

c) I understand that in part the issue surrounding the Danish
cartoons involves a clash between people for whom words and images
still have meaning and those in the West who have spent the past 30
years stripping meaning from their societies.

As citizens and as people, we need to be free. Free to inspire and
free to offend. Free to be offended and free to defend our integrity
through boycotts and debate and peaceful protest. Free to tolerate,
sympathize and empathize.

Only if we are free can we be a virtuous people. And when we are
virtuous people, we make good decisions.

pmenzies@theherald.canwest.com

© The Calgary Herald 2006

Copyright © 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest
MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

<BR><FONT size=1>
You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to a Citizens Centre email list. To change your email subscription, go to www.ccfd.ca and click on "Subscribe".

--
Powered by PHPlist, www.phplist.com --