A maple syrup-sucking surrender monkey

Warren Kinsella is "Priud [sic] to be censor".

Firstly, I am a censor. I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression...

...I believe we are entitled as society to place reasonable limits on the expression of actual hatred towards religious faiths. I believe that words and images that expose the tenets of a person's faith to hatred should be condemned and, where appropriate, punished. Expressing hatred about someone else's spiritual beliefs is not free speech. It is hatred, and it is almost always calculated to cause pain and hurt...

Last week, at band practice, we were talking about another Toronto punk group, called - and I'm not making this up - Tit Fuck Me Jesus.

I'm a church-going Catholic, and that band's name doesn't offend me in the slightest...

But that's just me. And I can certainly see how someone else could be offended - really and truly hurt - by something like a band called Tit Fuck Me Jesus. And, just because I'm okay with that, doesn't mean that someone else has to be.

That's pretty much where I end up on the cartoons that depict Islam's prophet as a murderer. You might not find such things hateful or even hurtful, but many others do. Deeply, truly, honestly.

And, when all is said and done, what Muslims seek from the rest of us is not anything we do not already seek from them. Which is, mainly, a modicum of respect for the things they hold closest to their hearts.

I say they deserve that respect. And, if that makes me a censor, I'll wear that insult with pride.

Mr Kinsella has a strange view of what might cause offence. Or should one say a hypocritical double standard?

He certainly does have a juvenile liking for using foul language for its own sake--surely he could have found another example of anti-Christian "artistic expression" to cite? I am sorry that I felt the need to repeat the words here but I think it necessary to refute the very point he is feebly trying to make.

Damian adds: people who advocate for censorship are inevitably hypocrites, because they're calling for censorship of things they don't like. But if there's something they've said that others found offensive, well, that's different. Note the way Kinsella defends his own mockery of Stockwell Day's religious beliefs during the 2000 election campaign:

I say that, too, as the same guy who used a Barney doll and a joke - the "Flintstones is not a documentary" line - during the 2000 Canadian election campaign. (I did so because Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day had repeatedly stated that his religious beliefs had, and would, inform his political beliefs. And because Canadian voters were therefore entitled, at that moment, to fully consider the ramifications of faith-based politics, as Day was then seeking the highest political office in the land.)

You see, that was different, because Kinsella had a good purpose. He wasn't trying to incite hatred toward fundamentalist Christians, but just trying to say they're unfit to be Prime Minister.

If Kinsella were even trying to be logically consistent, he would have to admit that, while he doesn't find the name of that punk band offensive, some people most certainly would, and therefore they should be prevented from using it - using the full authority and power of the state, if necessary. And while he was at it, he'd admit that he should be charged under hate-speech laws for some of his own blog postings, such as putting the post-2004-election "Jesusland" map on his website.

The point is, where do we draw the line? "Where Warren Kinsella says we should draw the line" is not a good answer.

Update: Thank you to Damian for elucidating so well the underlying message of the post. By the way, WK has corrected "priud" to "proud" in his post.

Posted by markc at February 5, 2006 11:40 AM | TrackBack