The student paper at University of Toronto, The Strand, wouldnÂ’t print the Danish cartoons, on the grounds that they were inflammatory.

So instead, they printed this one.

What do you think?

The paper refused to back down under pressure from student groups but the support of the university. On one level, I find it admirable. On another, I do not.

As I have said in the past, I have doubts about the original decision to publish the Mohammad cartoons in Denmark. I donÂ’t know that I would have published all of them, but the paperÂ’s editor offers a good explanation of his motivations. But once they became the source of such an uproar, the cartoons became newsworthy and needed to be printed to provide context. The failure of media outlets to do so was wrong.

The Strand took a different tack – they published this entirely different cartoon, one that does not show Mohammad’s face but which is, clearly, Mohammad. And for good measure, they showed him making out with Jesus on a carnival ride – with Jesus clearly the sexual aggressor. And that is where I am left somewhat puzzled – what exactly was the point of portraying the Son of God in such a gratuitously offensive manner? I don’t deny their right to do so (though I wonder if Canadian hate-speech laws could be invoked), I just don’t see their reason for doing so if they won’t publish the newsworthy cartoons.

Their explanation for publishing this cartoon?

To some degree, we felt like it was our duty to do so. We would be making a statement: that freedom of expression triumphs over all, that tactics like the administration emptying newsstands over publication of controversial subjects are Draconian and detrimental to an environment like a university, which claims to nurture new ideas and inspire independent thinking. After all, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are basic values in Canadian society. But where does freedom of images fit in?

Our own editorial staff was completely conflicted on the issue. Many of them had had their fill of cartoon-related debate with the prophets-making-out-cartoon and didn't even reply to the e-mails that were sent out. By Monday night, not everyone's opinion had been aired, and the notorious cartoons were screaming for a decision to be made.

We won't be like other institutions. We will value the freedom to choose just as highly as that to express. And above all, we will try to the best of our abilities to reach out to the greatest possible audience we can, hopefully inspiring some discussion and critical thinking along the way.

You can see the cartoon we almost didn't publish below. In light of everything else, it seems pretty damn tame. Hell, those could be any two guys kissing! And who doesn't play tonsil hockey in the Tunnel of Love? As for the other ones, you can view them online, but only if you want to.

Frankly, it is a pretty weak explanation, don’t you think? And I won’t get into the question of their blasphemy in the editorial, in which they relegate Jesus to the status of mere prophet (the Muslim designation for Jesus) rather than Christian designations like Lord, Son of God, and Saviour of the World. But it is their right to publish, just as it is my right to say they are wrong – but being wrong and offensive and blasphemous is not a basis for censorship.

Still, I find it interesting to note that not one riot has been provoked by the much more offensive explicit and intentional insult to Jesus. And that may be the real point – offended Christians don’t kill; offended Muslims do.

UPDATE: It seems that the ever-so-tolerant folks at University of Toronto are not so tolerant of free speech in instances when it upholds traditional Christian teachings on homosexuality or abortion.

HAT TIP: Exposed Agenda via Crittermusings.

MORE AT Jawa Report, Dread Pundit Bluto, Hyscience, Live Free Or Die, I'll Get That Chicken, Adam Daifallah, Elder of Ziyon, Nav Purewal, Reason/Hit & Run, Kokonut Pundits, NFOrce

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 689 words, total size 6 kb.