73 Replies to “A Comedy Central Decision”

  1. haha i can’t believe how seriously people take things. Especially things on comedy central. I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but Comedy Central is the most sarcastic network around. I think the funniest thing is how little they even have to try these days.
    ps. I like gays. I like gays

  2. Billy: The problem with your view is that you believe that simply exercising free speech rights “provokes” murder. This is not sufficient provocation to kill in modern society. Modern ethics only permit you to kill someone else in self-defense or to defend a third party who were in iminent danger of immediate death at the hands of said party you killed.
    Do you also then agree that the women killed by their male relatives in “honour killings” provoked their own murders? I’m thinking especially the women killed for leaving a man who beat them regularly.
    I’m not elligble to vote in the experiment, because I’ve stood up for freedom of speech and advocated the Saskatoon Sheaf show a cartoon of Osama bin Laden sodomizing Mohammed. Face it, Osama’s been using Mohammed as his bitch to gain influence in the world of followers who have no independent thoughts. If Osama thought being a martyr was such a good idea, he’d have strapped on an explosive belt long ago and wouldn’t be hiding. You’d think young Muslims would have put that together by now.
    But, to test the waters, I’m here, I’m queer, get over it. ‘Cause if I’m not having sex with you or your wife, it’s got nothing to do with you.
    So Billy, please vote on whether my freedom of speech should be defended.

  4. Billy: The problem with your view is that you believe that simply exercising free speech rights “provokes” murder.
    The problem, in my view and in reality, is that free speech does indeed provoke murder. As long as western society is under siege, I do not see what good it does for individuals to select themselves for a death lottery and even less to endanger others.
    Do you also then agree that the women killed by their male relatives in “honour killings” provoked their own murders?
    Yes, they did. They should not have died nor should their male relatives have killed them but their actions did lead to their deaths.
    But, to test the waters, I’m here, I’m queer, get over it. ‘Cause if I’m not having sex with you or your wife, it’s got nothing to do with you. So Billy, please vote on whether my freedom of speech should be defended.
    Yes, your freedom of speech and mine should be defended. But that is unlikely to happen soon: in this country, as far as I know, only the Western Standard and a university newspaper published the cartoons of death, so we know that the institutions that should be the most committed to open expression are the most cowardly; our foreign minister has more or less condemned free speech and those who exercise it (a stunning capitulation to mob violence); our country is deeply divided over our military presence in Afghanistan where we actually can confront and kill Islamist murderers. So, I do not wish to be hacked with a knife in the street like Theo van Gogh nor do I insist others run that risk. Did you not see journalists and political leaders question Ezra Levant’s decision to publish? Did you not see book stores – book stores! – refuse to sell the Western Standard? Did you not see Ontario seriously consider Sharia law? No, no, if people are to sacrifice themselves, let them die for something more than the rotting husk of a society.

  5. Muzzled by network, ‘South Park’ bites back
    DAVID BAUDER
    Associated Press
    New York � Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the creators of South Park skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon’s most recent episode.
    The comedy � in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians � instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on U.S. President George W. Bush and the American flag.
    In an elaborately constructed two-part episode of their Peabody Award-winning cartoon, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker intended to comment on the controversy created by a Danish newspaper’s publishing of caricatures of Muhammad.
    …
    Parker and Stone were angered when told by Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show who didn’t want to be identified because of the issue’s sensitivity.
    The network’s decision was made over concerns for public safety, the person said.
    Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: �In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision.� Its executives would not comment further.
    As is often the case with Parker and Stone, they built South Park around the incident. In Wednesday’s episode, the character Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored Family Guy even though it had an image of Muhammad.
    �Either it’s all OK, or none of it is,� Kyle said. �Do the right thing.�
    The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Muhammad is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: �Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network.�
    It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag.
    A frequent South Park critic, William Donohue of the anti-defamation group Catholic League, called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored.
    �The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central � that’s their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not � it’s Parker and Stone,� he said. �Like little whores, they’ll sit there and grab the bucks. They’ll sit there and they’ll whine and they’ll take their shot at Jesus. That’s their stock in trade.�
    Parker and Stone did not immediately respond to a request through a spokesman for comment.
    It’s the second run-in over religion in a few months for the satirists. Comedy Central pulled a March rerun of a South Park episode that mocked Scientologists. Isaac Hayes, a Scientologist who voiced the Chef character on the show, resigned in protest over the episode.
    South Park again got the last word last month with an episode where Chef was seemingly killed and mourned as a jolly guy whose brains were scrambled by the Super Adventure Club, which turns its members into pedophiles.
    Only last week, South Park won broadcasting’s prestigious Peabody. Awards director Horace Newcomb said at the time that by its offensiveness, the show �reminds us of the need for being tolerant.� +
    http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13252.12

  6. Throwing the acid of Satire/Irony into
    Mohammed/Allah’s face is a maximum weapon to
    destroy the theocracy of the Islamist terrorists; to destroy the human soul-killing curse of political correctness.
    More, please… and faster. +
    Isaac Hayes’ Chef character given true South Park send-off–TCN APCP Story
    NEW YORK (AP) – Isaac Hayes’ Chef character had a true South Park send-off Wednesday night – seemingly killed off but mourned as a jolly old guy whose brains were scrambled by the Super Adventure Club.
    The thinly disguised satire continued the show’s feud with Scientologists in its 10th-season premiere on Comedy Central. The soul singer has voiced the Chef character on South Park since 1997 but left recently because of what he called the animated show’s religious “intolerance and bigotry.” Founders Matt Stone and Trey Parker said Hayes, a Scientologist, was angry South Park mocked the religion in an episode last November.
    A rerun of that Scientology episode was mysteriously pulled off the air last week amid published reports actor Tom Cruise, another Scientologist, had used his clout to bury it. A Cruise spokesman denied that.
    …
    Chef repeatedly said he wanted to “make sweet love” to the South Park elementary school kids – it seems the Super Adventure Club turns its members into child-molesters.
    The children try to rescue Chef but in the end he turns to head back to the Super Adventure Club – until he falls off a bridge onto rocks, is burned, stabbed and mauled by a mountain lion and bear.
    Then he apparently dies.
    “A lot of us don’t agree with the choices the Chef has made in the last few days,” one of the children eulogizes him at a funeral.
    “Some of us feel hurt and confused that he seemed to turn his back on us. But we can’t let the events of the past few weeks take away the memories of how Chef made us smile.”
    “We shouldn’t be mad at Chef for leaving us,” the eulogy concludes.
    “We should be mad at that fruity little club for scrambling his brains.” +
    http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13252.13

  7. Certain comments in this thread raise an interesting issue. Particularly Billy B. Bytown’s .
    I’ve been toying with the idea of getting or making myself a Mohamed t-shirt and wearing it around town. Nothing tasteless, maybe one of the Jylends-Postens cartoons.
    I rejected the notion for the following reason. In some places in the world, like Arizona, being confronted by angry defenders of the faith isn’t dangerous. A semi-polite discussion will ensue, I’ll assert my right to free speech, and that will be the end of it.
    In Canada that’s not what will happen. The angry defenders of the faith will not feel it neccessary to respect my right to free speech, nor will they feel constrained to non-violent protest at my t-shirt. In short, somebody will kick my ass at the very least, and possibly burn my house down.
    Can any of you brave Lefties guess the difference between Arizona and Canada?

  8. Hi JM
    “Young Muslim Internet sites in Canada extol the merits of fundamentalism, cite extremist clerics as role models. Chat rooms discuss the virtues of the Islamic state…”
    Do you have a link?

  9. phantom what part of canada do u live in. Where i’m from(Sask), everyones pretty chill, especially the lefties. Obviously theres activists, etc. but not violent ones.

  10. Billy B – our society is, as you call it, a ‘rotting husk of a society’ precisely because individuals refuse to stand up for its values. You refuse to stand up for its values. Therefore, you don’t deserve those values.
    Social values don’t exist as abstract clouds; they are embedded in the actions and beliefs of real-life material individuals. If those real-life material individuals refuse to acknowledge them, and hide from protecting and promoting them – then…the society will dissolve into a ‘rotting husk’.
    You are responsible for that end. As you admit, you have capitulated to mob violence. Remember, ‘mob might’ is the easiest way of all to control people; it doesn’t even require an ideology. People who are controlled by physical force (not ideological force) have rejected their essential human nature; their capacity to think. They have turned into animals, who are indeed, controlled by physical force.
    As for your statement that the women are responsible for their relatives beating them to death – that’s quite an extraordinary conclusions of yours. You haven’t explained why you come to this conclusion. I think it would be helpful if you did. Blaming the victim is a common tactic of bullies, where they self-define themselves as deprived of reason and conscience by the behaviour of X (the woman). So, if a woman is raped, then, it is her fault, and she should be killed by her relatives to avenge family honour. Could you explain why you justify this? Is it her attractiveness? Or, was it the fact that she was raped because the Other Family wanted to humiliate Her Family? Or…??
    Again, Billy b- the fact that you are now living in a civil society, is due to the courage of others who have fought for its values.

  11. ET, do I believe that Muslim men should murder their women, or confine them or beat them or force them to wear certain clothing? No. Do such things happen? Yes. Do some Muslim women pay with their lives for choices you and I believe should be theirs? Yes. But where and how do I condone this? I said their actions led to their deaths, and they did. You introduce arguments I did not make so I do not refute them. As for my ‘capitulation to mob violence’, if I have indeed surrendered, I would stand in distinguised company – here in Canada alone, all of academia, journalism and politics, with perhaps a dozen inspiring exceptions. I have no confidence in the willingness of ability of our government or institutions to defend us – in fact, I firmly believe their policies, actions, inaction and ineptitude put us further at risk with every passing day. My original point was a simple one and I will state it again. I do not have the right to put others at risk.

  12. Phantom:
    I’d like to get one that simply has the text:
    “I drew a Muhammed cartoon and all I got was this lousy fatwa.”
    I read some picketer had a sign with that on it and thought it was genius.

  13. Billy B. ByTown – while you are concerned that through your “actions” you may put “others at risk”, I can assure you that your advocacy of inaction is accomplishing this quite nicely on its own.

  14. I unfortunately live in Ontario, too near Moronto to be able to assume my personal safety from unrestrained violence. Wearing a Mohamed t-shirt in Rexdale will get you a guaranteed smackdown, and possibly arrested.
    That’s the problem. Here’s the cause of the problem, I quote Mr. Bytown’s words from the comment above:
    “I have no confidence in the willingness of ability of our government or institutions to defend us – in fact, I firmly believe their policies, actions, inaction and ineptitude put us further at risk with every passing day. My original point was a simple one and I will state it again. I do not have the right to put others at risk.”
    Mr. Bytown thinks Big Brother is supposed to keep him safe and stick up for him against the mean old Muslims. That is the problem.
    Whatever happened to the responsibility to stick up for yourself? Well, let me tell you. Mr. Bytown is 100% correct in his assessment but its worse than that. The Canadian government and particulary here in Ontario, will not allow citizens to protect themselves or their property from attack.
    In Arizona nobody will assault you for wearing the Mohamed t-shirt because A) they will probably go to jail for their unprovoked attack but mostly because B) they will only get to go to jail if they survive you shooting them.
    Here in Ontario there’s a good chance the cops will arrest YOU for wearing the t-shirt even after you get beat. Should you resist the beating and cause injury to your attacker, for sure you wil;l get arrested.
    We might want to fix that, eh?

  15. Has anyone noticed that movies and TV shows with actors and actresses that have been very vocal against Iraq, the cartoons etc. are bombing at the box office. Let’s hope the latest Tom Cruise movie meets the same fate. Muslims riot, burn, behead and get offended. Christians use their pocketbook to retaliate. What is the latest on the Sheath, any new offensive cartoons or more resignations or apologies.

  17. Hey I think gays are okay until I think about them stuffing large objects into their colons on a regular basis, then I think … Are they all insane? Why would anyone do this?
    Just asking. I guess they are fairly normal otherwise.
    There is still is a ‘normal’ isn’t there? Just asking.

  18. I don’t think you should censor any pro gay comments unless there off topic Kate. Doing so, just makes Consevatives & Libertarians as despotic mentaly, as the pod people.
    I by no means like the gay agenda, ( To say they don’t have one, would be crazy.) nor there obbsesion with sex with a compulsion to define themselves by sexuality.Didn’t Women struggle with that for a long time & still do, with its negative conutations? To my way of thinking , gay’s are just another fringe group like Sado masicasts or wife swappers. Deviant but not crimminal.
    As such they have the same rights as citizans & should be protected with free speech. All others as well. For repeat & violent crimminals ? SOL to you! You gave em away with fore knowledge , knowing the outcome if caught.

  19. re yeah’s comment: The reason the book launch was cancelled was because the scientist, an employee of Environment Canada, hadn’t gone through the proper channels–there are protocols about these things– and because it appeared that he was going to promote his book at The National Press Club based on his his position in this department. It would have given his fictional account of global warming–also a hot topic “debated” on this blog a few days ago–a credibility which perhaps was unwarranted, not to mention, a lot of people might have thought that this book had Environment Canada’s official endorsement, which it obviously didn’t.
    I think Tushingham had a lot of nerve thinking he would launch his book on the coattails of Environment Canada–and I suspect his motives were less than honourable.
    I’m with the government on this one. Rules are rules–and we can live better with them than without them.

  20. South Park Censorship: A Matter of Fear
    Several readers emailed copies of Comedy Central�s form letter explaining their decision to censor South Park, and just as with Borders Books we see an honest, open acknowledgment that the root cause of their decision is fear of the Religion of Peace�:
    Dear Viewer,
    Thank you for your correspondence regarding the �South Park� episodes entitled �Cartoon Wars.� We appreciate your concerns about censorship and the destructive influence of outside groups on the media, entertainment industry and particularly Comedy Central.
    To reiterate, as satirists, we believe that it is our First Amendment right to poke fun at any and all people, groups, organizations and religions and we will continue to defend that right. Our goal is to make people laugh and perhaps, if we�re lucky, even make them think in the process.
    Comedy Central�s belief in the First Amendment has not wavered, despite our decision not to air an image of Muhammad. Our decision was made not to mute the voices of Trey and Matt or because we value one religion over any other. This decision was based solely on concern for public safety in light of recent world events. + via LGF

  21. Billy B
    It’s a pleasure to read your comments, with which I am in general agreement.
    Could you elaborate on which proactive actions you think appropiate for implementation over the longer term (say 20-30yrs)?
    Because some day (hopefully not too late) our day will (have to) come !!
    That is to say: The standards of the western world will never be able to submit to this foreign ideology.
    Will we be able to avoid catastrophic events ???
    (I am thinking: Bush/Iran/Israel/Iraq/WW3)

  22. What to do
    The point was made above that individual physical retaliation against radical elements is pretty much out of the question. The laws will probably work swiftly and surely against someone caught up in this.
    In Canada, the physical approach by radical elements is not likely to be a factor at the present time or probably the near future for the same reason.
    Radical elements in Canada are resorting to using the legal system to make their points and gain ground as their numbers are increasing in Canada. The tipping point in the EU has apparently been reached – now, will Canada be next on the list?.
    It is a no-brainer to think of provincial court decisions, supreme court decisions, the legal acts/frameworks that are now in place to know that so far – it seems to be working for them (the radical elements).
    The majority populaton, or large united segements of it, really don’t have much choice any more other than to somehow use the legal system to bring back some sense of balance to a society in which virtually an extreme political correctness ( I would argue it is now serious reverse disrimination) is virtually the norm.
    This has been encouraged/mandated by the past Federal Liberal governments through their laws, regulations, funding practices, and institutions set up in and around
    Crime/Citizenship/Immigration/Multicultural/Refugee/Human Rights areas.
    Sadly, the Federal Acts passed and implimented pretty much with the express purpose of protecting the Francophone minority (2/3 of whom could really care less about protecting anything but unilingual French) are now being used by the radical minorities in the ROC. This while Quebec still remains insulated by such things as Law 101 and retaining considerable control over their own immigration into Quebec.
    We are in serious trouble and the apparent inability to individually do much of anything (except perhaps massive protests) significant to bring about change is generating a lot of both fear and anger within individuals.

  23. I know a hell of a lot of gay people and hetero people. I’d say the percentage of people who enjoy sexual stimulation up the rectum is almost equal in both groups – of the people who’ve told their interests to me.
    I hear a lot more about people’s sexual proclivities than most, because my wife owns and erotic emporium for women. The majority of customers are married straight couples. She sells a lot of harnesses and dills to the wives, at their husband’s request and subsequent delight.
    Unless you’ve worked the sales counter at such a shop, you’d probably have no idea how creative married heteros can get sexually.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation