Conference kaosws::canada

For more information, you may wish to read the "Banned Books" note (I forget 
the number) in the KAYGEE::BOOKS conference.  Not only do they discuss "Satanic 
Verses", but a number of other banned publications, too.

Caution: Do NOT read that discussion if you have high blood pressure!  When you 
see what the do-gooders have tried to ban, it will make your blood boil...

Russ Schwartz.

Well, far from having any tangible knowledge on the Koran, I did read in
the paper recently that a Muslim is "sworn" to kill anyone who takes a
poke at their religion.  Literally, dedicate his life to avenging the
wrong: never cease; spare no horses; pull out all the stops; spend his
last coin... whatever it takes.  Seems this book says something about
Mohammed writing the Koran himself, that is, it wasn't inspired by Allah.

Oh yeah, "leave it to the authorities" has always been one of my favorites.
Remember when "Banned in Boston" meant it was probably worth seeing/reading?
"Banned in Canada"?  I thought those days were through.

Kip

    does "Banned in Canada" have the same effect as "Banned in Boston"?
    
    :-):-)
    

    b.
    

    Otto Jelinek, the minister responsible for Revenue Canada (which
    includes Customs), has received a death threat over the decision
    to allow imports of the book.  The decision was taken after a review
    of the book (at the request of a Muslim group) to see if it fit
    the criteria of hate literature.  It did not, and imports were not
    halted.  Mr. Jelinek is under police protection.
    
    I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, John Turner, when he
    commented on the recall of Canada's charge d'affaires from Tehran. He
    suggested that we should break diplomatic relations with Iran (recently
    restored).  He has a point.  Iran has once again showed that it is not
    capable of civilized behavior.  Until Iran shows that it deserves to be
    a part of the world community, it should be isolated.  Their human
    rights abuses and their support of terrorism are widely documented. 
    The bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head violates international law and
    practice, as well as most fundamental human rights.  Such actions
    must be sounded rejected by all countries.  A diplomatic slap is
    not the punishment to fit the crime.  Perhaps total diplomatic
    isolation, as well as an economic embargo would fit the bill.
    
    Glenn

    Remember how WW1 started, all this could go the same way, but then
    it won't be regular war with "rules",  I for one will not board
    a plane without fear that a crazed muslim has put a bomb in it (just
    like they have done quite often so far).
    
    I hope this blows over quietly
    
    Jean
    

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the criminal code statute
    on hate literature establishes that it is an offense to distribute 
    materials that incite or encourage individuals or groups to violence.
    I will look up the statute tonight. As I recall, it was  used to 
    successfully stem the distribution of pro-nazi or Klu Klux Klan 
    materials in Ontario in the early 1980's. The intent of the law was 
    to deter the distribution of the materials, not the free thought 
    required for its creation. That is, you have the right to think or 
    believe anything you want but you do not have the right to advocate
    through the printed medium, the abrogation or cessation of the 
    rights of others.  
    
    As for THE SATANIC VERSES, I have not read it, but based on some
    critiques in the New York media, it sounds pretty boring. But I'll
    bet Mr Rushdie will make more money from his book now than if nothing
    had been said. BTW, there does seem to be a disconcerting phenomena
    around all this. Remember when the film Last Temptation Of Christ
    was released? It frightens me that we seem to have forgotten that
    freedom means protecting everyones artistic rights; not just those
    with whom we feel no discomfort.   I don't understand why more people
    are not incensed when something like this happens.  We have to be
    careful not to idly watch our civil rights become simply words written
    on old documents with no real world meaning. I hope this DOES NOT
    JUST BLOW OVER! There is a real danger of allowing terrorists reduce
    our capacity to express ourselves for fear of reprisals.
    
    Carol
    

    Is the book fiction?

    RE:7
    
    I think that Rushdie (still in hiding) claims that it is fiction.
    
    You might find it interesting (and humorous) to know that Cat Stevens
    the great stoccato singer of the 70s, who is now a fervent Muslim
    living in London, England agrees totally with what the Ayatollah
    has done.
    
    I think that this is no joke. I taught Arabs (I think they were all
    Muslims) for about 7 years and got to know quite a bit about their
    beliefs and their feelings about their religion. Although I respect
    the right of every human being to worship his/her GOD in their own
    fashion I have lost all my respect for Islam. It is so reactionary
    and repressive. I have not read the Koran so my judgement is based
    solely on the what I have heard Muslims say and the customs I have
    seen them practise. That does not mean to say that I find Arabs
    offensive in any way. The Arabs I got to know in the past were
    extremely friendly and generous people. I do, however, worry about
    the threat of middle Eastern terrorists planting bombs on planes
    because someone says something derogatory about a religion. If you
    believe in your God then something like that should not shake your
    faith. 
    
    I'm very sceptical about a religion that says it is right to kill
    someone for something they have said.
    
    Ted.

    When I wrote "I hope this blows over", I did not mean that we should
    burry our freedom of expression, but that the Islamic community
    should just ignore the book and it's author.  Befor all this hupla,
    the book was not selling very well, and it is probably trash (I
    have not read it).  Altough I like to think that the world population
    is better educated and the communications between nations is not
    as it was in the early 1900's, I shudder when I see such stupid
    behavior from the likes of the ayathola, and his followers, including
    Cat Stevens.  When the result of thier fanatism is an exploding
    plane that might have one of your relatives on board, and thousands
    of miles from Iran.....
    
    Jean
    

    I doubt that the book is trash, but you may not find it a good read.
    It apparantly waxes pedantic quite a bit. I think I'll buy a copy
    at the World's Biggest Bookstore, just to thumb my nose at Khat Stevens,
    er..., I mean Khomeini.
    
    
    Scooter

    There's a good article on the book in today's Globe and Mail (p.7) by
    an Islamic academic from Edmonton.  It gives a good perspective on the
    substance of the book, and why Muslims are so upset about it.  Mr Amin
    Malak, the author of the article, claims it is a good literary work
    while condemning the way it attacks Islam.  A very balanced piece. 
    
    Further to the discussion of yesterday, West Germany has started
    cabinet discussions over the possibility of economic sanctions on
    Iran.  West Germany is Iran's biggest trading partner.
    
    The reference to letting this blow over, and the comparison to the
    First World War are off-base.  Appeasing terrorism has never worked:
    it only encourages further terrorism.  Advance the history book
    to WWII for further reference.  If Mr.Rushdie is killed, then the
    Ayatollah must be held responsible for his death.  And unless the
    death threat is withdrawn, and an apology made for the threat, then
    further diplomatic and economic actions must be taken.
    
    While I can not claim to fully understand the impact this book has
    had on individual Muslims, I do think the comparison to the release
    of The Last Temptation of Christ is a good one.  Again, it is a
    dream sequence which offends believers the most.  Again, prostitution
    is involved in the dream sequence.  Again, a lot of believers burned
    books and protested at the theatres (in this case bookstores) where
    the 'blaspheming' material was found.
    
    But neither the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor any other
    Christian leader said Martin Scorsese (sp?) had to be put to death.
    The condemnation of the Ayatollah's actions is not based on lack of
    knowledge of Islam; it is based on the comparison to our own behaviour.

    Glenn

	I'm curious about Cat Steven's position - I knew he became a
Moslem/Muslin/whatever; but I haven't heard him quoted.  Does he say
Rushdie should be killed??  A long way from the fellow who wrote humane
songs like "Where do the children play", "Father and son", "Peace
train"! 

	I gotta give some kind of credit to the way Norman Mailer moved
on the issue, organizing demonstrations in New York at the stores that
gave in to Moslem pressure.  He said he will have his own books removed
from those stores as well.  He encouraged writers of the world to 
individually commit that if Rushdie is killed, they will stand in his
place. 

	(Can you see Pierre Berton doing that?   The only time Pierre
ever demonstrated at Coles was when they cut into his royalties.  They
may redeem themselves yet, but Canadian writers so far are taking the
safety-in-numbers committee approach, arguing interminably about exactly
what to say!) 

RE: Khat Stevens (thanks Scooter!)

I heard it mentioned on a Boston radio newscast over the weekend.
As far as I'm concerned - and I've already trashed the two albums
we had - Mr. "Peace Train" Stevens has now been written off.

Kip

    Some may view this as over-reaction, but I had a ceremonial
    'assassination' of Tea for the Tillerman. May not have proved anything,
    but I feel better.
                                                         
    Scooter

    As I mentioned in an earlier reply, I would find the statute on
    Hate Propaganda as defined in the Canadian Criminal Code. It may
    seem a little long but I tried to reproduce the "juiciest" pieces.
    
    	281.1 (1) [Advocating genocide] Every one who advocates or promotes
    genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to{imprisonment for five years.
    	      (2) ["Genocide"] In this section "genocide" means any
    of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole
    or in part any identifiable group namely;
    		a) killing members of the group, or
    		b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
    life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
    	      (3) [Consent] ....
    	      (4) [Identifiable group] In this section means any section
    of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic
    origin.
    1969-70, c.39, a.1.(c.11, 1er supp.)                         
    
    	281.2 (1) [Public incitement of hatred] Every one who, by
    communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against
    any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to
    a breach of the peace is guilty of
    		a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment
    for two years; or
    		b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    
    	      (2) [Wilful promotion of hatred] Every one who, by
    communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully
    promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of...
    
    	      (3) [Defences] No person shall be convicted under subsection
    (2)
    		a) if he establishes that the statements that were
    communicated were true;
    		b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to
    establish by argument an opinion upon a religious subject;
    		c)....
    		d)....
    	 
    	      (4) [Forfeiture] ....
    	
    	      (5) [Exemption from seizure of communication facilities]....
    
    	      (6) [Consent] ......
    
    	      (7) [Definitions] In this section
    	["communicating"] includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting
    or other audible or visible means.
    1969-70, c.39,a.1.(c.11,1er supp)
    
    There is another section that goes into further definitions and
    responsibilities.         
    
    I think that it becomes obvious that the Canadian government cannot
    ban the book on the basis of this section because it does not advocate
    violence against followers of Islam and one could say Rushdie is
    simply putting forward a religious argument about the morality and 
    mortality of the prophet Mohammed. (Subsection 281.2 (3b).)
    
    However Section 423 of the criminal code does make it clear that
    Conspiracy to commit murder exists whereby "...every one who conspires
    with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be
    murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence
    and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years;... ". Therefore
    if nothing else, the Ayotollah, by offering a reward for Rushdies'
    death, has breached Canadian law and therefore must be censured
    by the Canadian Government. To take it one step farther, for the
    Canadian Government to continue any diplomatic relationship with Iran 
    would be tatamount to dismissing the legal not to mention civil
    principles that Canadians have come to believe in.
    
    Carol
    
    
    
    
    	
    
    

    On the news yesterday, they said that V�ronique Samson, a french
    signer, had to remove a song from her show that had "Allah" as it's
    title, since death treats were received.  This is really getting
    out of hand, and it is scary.  I hate to be a doomsayer but there
    is a great polarization taking place, and this could lead to a
    confrontation between muslims and non-muslims.
    
    Jean
    

      
     Please pardon my lack of knowledge, but could someone write a 
     brief outline of the terms "ALLAH" and "KORAN".
    
     Thx...Jim

    re: .17
    
    Allah is the names Muslims call God.  The Koran is the holy book
    of Islam.  Muslims believe the words in the Koran are direct from
    Allah, and that Mohammed, who wrote the Koran, is His Prophet. 
    
    The title 'Satanic Verses' refers to two verses Mohammed deleted
    from the Koran after he finished writing it down.  He believed they
    were not God's words, but were inspired by the Devil.
    
    Too bad he didn't edit out his references to Holy Wars.  :-)
    
    Glenn