I understand arguments in favour of freedom of the press, and freedom involves choosing what NOT to cover just as much as it pertains to choosing what TO cover. As a government subsidized media outlet, the CBC must walk a political line as well. I agree with previous statements about values and consideration; integral parts of any religion. It boils down to this: if I utter the Lord's name in vain, and it offends a friend, coworker or casual acquaintance I will undoubtedly apologize and work towards fixing the situation. If the Western media was unaware of the Muslim's sensitivity with respect to depictions of religious figures and then published the drawings, apologize, and work towards fixing the situation. If the media was aware of this, then this act was ignorant and offensive. I have absolutely no interest in seeing these 'cartoons', and it's a shame that the media may have published them to sell papers, gain viewers, etc in light of the outrage. This simply adding fuel to the fire.

I am a Canadian living in Japan. Isn't hindsight wonderful? I'm sure if the editors who published the cartoon knew that buildings would be torched and people would die, they would not have published the cartoons. After all, we all know that you can't yell, "Fire" in a crowded movie theatre. But that's hindsight.

I'm so glad that cbc has hindsight before the fact, so-to-speak.

I know that the original purpose of the cartoons was to protest Muslim intimidation -- and it seems to have brought out the worst in the Muslim community. I think inspite of the regrettable violence, this incident will serve to bring the issue more out into the open. it has forced the hand of hot-heads on both sides.

All religions need to be lampooned! If they insult someone, too bad. If their faith is so weak that they cannot handle it, again too Bad. I have lost all patience with all of these silly religions. The one thing the Soviets and China had right.

Val

I disagree with CBC's sanctimonious stand on this issue. A description of the cartoons is not sufficient. Why can we not judge and attempt to understand for ourselves what the offense of these cartoons might be instead of having opinion filtered through your editorial staff? Of course I have seen them--anyone who wants to look on the internet will not find it hard--and among the ones which have been selected by the press as inflammatory, there were others that were fairly innocuous. I find it ironic that, very likely, many of the people who are burning flags and buildings have probably not seen the cartoons any more than the ones who are commenting with such convincing moderation. So many people are expressing opinions--everything from rabid hatred to excessive apology--but have NEVER experienced the original source of all the furor. Is this responsible? Your demurrals, couched in excuses of sensitivity and responsibility, are cowardly. How about some support for the editors of newspapers in France and in the Muslim world who dared to print them and then lost their jobs--and in the case of your Muslim colleagues, might be in danger for their lives? It isn't the moral high ground that is being held--it's the swamp of political correctness. It's the kind of appeasement that permits the zealots and fanatics to cow the rest of the world into "respecting" their dangerous actions and beliefs.

Having lived here in the Middle East for the past 9 years, there is one thing I have come to realize: We are definitely more alike than different. People here have families, they go to work, they socialize, and they dream of a better tomorrow. They do not live in caves, or ride camels. They are not all wealthy oil barrons and they are not all committed to terrorist acts. Not all muslims adhere to their religion with the same fervor. Some may have the occasional drink which is against their religion. If one looks for it, he/she will find many good and bad elements in a different culture. Why then, does it seem that a large number of media sources chose to focus on those less palatable stories? Because not many would pay for a story about "good" muslims, and those stories are out there. When did making money take precedence over journalistic responsibilities? Kudos to CBC for demonstrating their integrity and moral fibre. This is what makes me proud to be Canadian.

Long live our Canadian sense of tolerance and understanding. With this attitude, I guess, were it a superpower, Canada would have solved all the tumours the world is suffering from. I am a Muslim and a Canadian and I felt very respected thanks to this editorial. This article has made it clear for me that there are two worlds, one that preaches violence and one that calls for love and mutual respect, I am Canadian and am part of the second one come what may.

I am astonished at your collumn and the mealy mouthed agreement coming from most readers. It all reminds me of battered housewives as you deny your fear with words like, "appropriateness", "maturity" and "respect". Freedom of speech is only freedom of speech if it includes the freedom to say things others don't like. No society can call themselves free as long as a single idea or belief is fenced off as being beyond criticism. While hateful speech that attacks groups or libels individuals should not be allowed must not recieve the same protection The parody and ridicule and questioning and satire and mocking of all and every idea or belief that I disagree with is the sacrement of secular liberal culture and I have as much right to it as other religions and cultures have to their sacrement. If we give in and apologize and decide to tone ourselves down then where will it end?

If it was not for brave artists who have created daring and shocking and iconiclastic art within our culture and the context of its christian beliefs then the range of artistic expression allowed by our society, and the level of tolerance for social eccentricity, would be no less confining than in the victorian era 150 years ago. We must not allow what we have gained in the past 150 years to be taken away from us by a force from outside our culture.You say "What if those cartoons had instead focused on Christianity? And on Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary engaged in unspeakably offensive acts?" to which I answer YES YES YES!! don't censor that either! Our freedom only goes as far as our courage to express it and the rate of societies progress is determined by its willingness to impale all its sacred cows. I will never confine myself to living my life as a Dhimmi within the confines of what is acceptable to a medieval Islamic society just as I would never restrict myself to what is acceptable to similarly medieval minded though admittedly less violent fundamentalist christians.

this issue was hi-jacked by extremists with the intent of cowering the west. you blinked!

I support mockery of all religous political agendas.Our world will be safer when people are free of the true 'evil',that of religious oppression.So I call on all the editorial cartoonist of the world to roast all the different faiths, get published,take an ad space out if you have to, but get it done.Good taste, bad taste, responsibility......hog wash.This is the 21st century!Religon is our history, tolerance is our future.

I wish my high-school English teachers would have allowed me to make this same rationalization when we were subjected to those second-rate novels English teachers love so much.

Certainly there was "absolutely no public value" to be had in reading The Catcher in the Rye. I would have understood the book fine if I had had just a brief summary "in simple and clear English," right?

I applaud the canadian press for their show of respect to muslims because what that Danish paper did was clearly stupid and irresponsible. Their actions were clearly racist and promoted a view that all muslims were terrorists--surely they should be prosecuted for inciting hatred of a minority.

The violent reactions by fellow muslims is something i understand because they feel under attack and there is a great urge to defend themselves.

People need to understand that muslims value free speech as much as westerners(some westerners are muslims remember?) and to mistake this issue as a question of free speech versus oppressive religion only promotes the growing "us versus them" mentality that is growing in Europe and North America.

Tony,thank you for your wonderful editorial. After reading many of these comments, I was appalled at the misconceptions that some people had over this issue. The cartoons have not simply insulted the Prophet. They have clearly implied that ALL people of Islam are terrorists. You people think it is alright to promote this rascism? And another point I want to make - there are over 1 billion Muslims living in the world today. Only a tiny number of Muslims are actually burning the embassies harming others, and causing other trouble. I don't remember hearing about violent protests in developed countries like Saudi Arabia. Finally, if you believe that these disgusting cartoons should be published - don't be surprised by the protests. If you have the right to offend, we have the right to be offended.

The difference between right and wrong. I believe the majority of adults in this country know the difference between right and wrong. The "right" that I'm talking about is different than the word that is being thrown around in relation to this issue. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression...these are the things that are being claimed as rights. And they are being claimed, no matter what the cost. No matter the cost to an individual, a group, a nation. Is that really worth exercising your right to express an opinion or perception for which you were never asked? If a person is sexually harassed in the workplace by her employer's verbal fantasty's, isn't that just freedom of expression? If a man sits in a playground telling everyone within earshot of his belief that having sex with your own child is just an expression of love, isn't that his right? There are boundaries...this is an example of those boundaries being crossed.

Knowing that common sense isn't common, perhaps people should get back to basics and judge their actions against what's right and wrong. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

These "cartoons" are nothing less than inflammatory and have absolutely no other purpose.

The CBC is quite correct in my opinion to not add to this already sad situation. The CBC has taken a stand at the point of exercising its right of freedom of the press as opposed to sensationalism. The CBC has stated is position and its reasons. It has editorialized these positions.

I would also expect the CBC to strongly condemn any violent demonstrations that have occured elsewhere as well as any that might happen here.

There is enough hate in this world already and for some (a minority) of Canadian Muslims to join in this kind of activity not only degrades their religion and its values, but also shows their contempt for Canadian society, secularism, multiculturalism and law.

Muslims are not the enemy, those who foster hate and intolerance are; whether they are Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish or any other religion. All religions that I know of promote, peace, love, tolerance and forgiveness. To use religion as an excuse for breaking civil law is intrinsically wrong.

The CBC has done well to promote Canadian values and should continue to do so.

I find all of the comments and your own commentary very interesting. They all show that a lot of people are really thinking about this "problem". But really this problem has been with us since the days of Christ, and Muhammed, and Buddha... they are not new. I myself am fairly happy that CBC chose not to run these pictures, but that is my own moral feeling, there is also the side of "free speech", but i still believe decency and respect for all peoples beliefs must come first. Now, having said that i have not seen these pictures myself, do not want to and is that being uninformed? to draw ones own opinion of their merit? They are very tough questions,and i admire all who yake a stand against injustice, so congratulate CBC on NOT running them.. it is a difficult part of their, your responsibility. Thank you

It seems a bit disingenuous to pretend you're being responsible. You ask, "What if those cartoons focused on Christianity?" The answer is that you would have printed them. Remember the photos of the "Piss Christ" (i.e., the crucifix stuck upside down in a jar of urine) or the picture of the Virgin Mary made out of cow dung? I don't recall media restraint in those cases? Instead the media response to Christian complaints was quite simple: "Get over it."

If restraint is really a value here, how do you justify publishing the photos from Abu Graib? Didn't you expect these photos to excite Muslim sensitivities?

Remember, the burings and killings are over a CARTOON. It's time Muslims realise that there's no right to go through life being unoffended. Muslims are fond of making their opinions know. WHy do others not have the same right. Your craven response only encourages further silliness in the future.

Good for you, CBC, for your typical Canadian decision. I blame the Danish newspaper less than those media who published the cartoons subsequently. By then we knew how offensive they were considered, and it is not wise to provoke people or dangerous situations.

I agree with Wayne Neil of Vancouver. Consider that religions are created and perpetuated by a few people in order to control others. Then there is zero logic to stating "my fantasy is superior to your fantasy".

We can respect each other's personal opinions and refrain from mocking them out of human decency. No need for the high horse of religion for that.

I must ask how the CBC and the rest of the media will react next time to some author like Salman Rushdie who falls afoul of some cleric with his writings. Throw him to the wolves, like the CBC has done to this Danish editor?

If the media goes down the road of not offending any group, race or religion even in any small way, what we would have is just celebrity gossip and inane pap. Or maybe we are there already!

It is quite distressing that media outleats in North America and specifically the CBC have turned this story into a question of respect and sensitivity for others as opposed to what it is, censorship as a result of intimidation.

Media in all forms routinely insult or anger individuals and groups on a daily basis, why then does this hold so much resonance with the CBC editor's sensibilities?

I guess it's ok to hurt and anger the families of hostage victums by showing them agonisingly live the last moments of their lives begging for mercy, but a cartoon satirising the hypocracy in the muslim world is too insensitve.

Maybe it's the CBC who are the hypocrites.

I believe that the comics that have been drawn are offensive to the people who support Muhammed. For the people who do not support Muhammed or do not believe in him I feel it does not matter. I believe people should be able to support and express their own feelings no matter what, regardless of whether or not the drawings or speeches are disrespectful.

I shall presume from many of the CBC's commentaries that it shall from this day forward, refrain from printing and cartooning the Biblical God, Jesus Christ, or Mary, or any other faith based religion in any offensive manner.

If it deems the printing of the prophet Muhammed, depicted in cartoons as a terrorist as insensitive, unacceptable and irresponsible, then likewise anything depicting a faith based religion in a poor light shall likewise be considered as insensitive irresponsible, and unacceptable.

Is this not the genesis of the the "muzzling" of one aspect of Canada's "freedom of the press" by Islamists?

Canada is a secular society, and is no more under the law of Islam than it is under the law of any religion, Christianity notwithstanding.

Brian Batke
Cloverdale, B.C.

The issue upsets even me, a student without the true devotion to a religion like the one that is being disrespected in the present cartoons. To me the closest comparison I could imagine is if the Virgin Mary was depicted in a picture nude or promiscuously dressed and possibly doing an obscene action. Obviously Christians would be overall upset and offended by this, but enough to violently rebel? Although many Christians view their religion as a very important part of their lives would they be willing to risk dying for protecting it? Although the right of freedom of speech exists there are boundaries that are set to ensure the protection of other freedoms, like religion. These cartoons are breaching these boundaries. Broadcasters showing these cartoons should stop being naive, and realize the harm they are causing. Although they would probably deny the affect the cartoons are having they cannot deny the obvious religious abuse the cartoons are projecting.

Everything I want to say has been succinctly put by Julian of Victoria, BC (Feb 7) and Jason Ingram of London (Feb 8). What sticks in my craw is that you, Mr. Burman, see fit to respond to the readers' comments -- especially those who disagree with you -- with further argument, when in the real world of news the last word should be the reader's. Why don't you just accept our comments and shut up.

As a form of public media, newspapers are entitled to complete freedom of speech. Regarding the cartoons in question, there was no real need for insulting the Muslims. It only gave them more of a reason to hate the western culture. Being a high school student surrounded by diversity, I feel that cultural ignorance should have no place in the media, especially somthing like this.

I think that it was a good idea for CBC not to publish the cartoons in the newspaper since there was no need. I understand that the people who created the cartoon can expresss themselves because of freedom of speech but honestly there is not point in making people angry or feel bad to get some publicity in some cases. It was a smart move because it will be one less problem that CBC will have to fight against. I understand how people feel about this, because if it was me and people made fun of Jesus or Christianity, I would find it highly offensive, and I think a large amount of people would agree. I can understand the angle that the Muslims are coming from.

It is almost unabelievable how problems can compound themselves. I think it was very wise to not publish this cartoon, there is all ready so much controversy with the topic. Why bother creating more? I think this shows respect for our country, and the others effected in the situation.

Everyone is talking about how freedom of speech is more important than religion. I strognly disagree witht this matter because I have notcied something, when the Irani president talks about the Holocausts, he does not get freedom of speech. this is because he is Muslim. When non-muslims talks about Islam and make jokes about it, then the whole freedom of speech thing comes into effect. I disagree with this and I really feel that if it does not stop soon alot of rage is going to build up in the uslim world and alot of non-muslim counteries are going to get bombed.

Maybe, it's just the naive and simplistic view of a highschool student, but I really don't understand why these cartoons have been published and continue to be published. I understand what freedom of speech is and yet, I also understand the responsibility which comes accompanies that freedom. Why continue to publish something which is causing so much violence and pain for so many people? We are lucky to have the freedom to say and print what we like, but in publishing these cartoons we are abusing that freedom and offending thousands.

All of this seems quite pointless. It was a good choice not to show them. Why show a cartoon that will offend many people, just to get a cheap laugh? It doesn't seem reasonable to do that. I'm not a religious person, but if it is offending many people. Then what is the point. Religion is important to people in Islam. So why make fun of the religion. It will just make people angry. I'm for freedom of speech, but this was just a dumb thing to do.

Hello,

My thoughts on this issue are not tampered or currupt in any way, on both sides othe the argumnet immense amounts of immaturity and disrespect are shown. Obviously the cartoonist is not talented, as he displayed his blatant effort for cheap (poor humor is it?) I think not. It is not as if the citizens of Denmark all show disrespect to other religions, we were not all taking part in the drawings. Thank you for reading.

I feel as though there is no point in showing these cartoons. What is the point of offending people for no reason. It is causing un-necessary violence and it just plain stupid. It is like feeding the fire for no reason.

I have always thought the purpose of the news media was to, without bias or censor, report the events as they happened. Printing cartoons that are intentionally designed to depict any group in a negative way doesn't fulfill this purpose. After all, isn't the primary purpose of to entertain, not inform?

Obviously it has been showned that a large group of human beings find these illustrations less than entertaining and a very small group of these people have decided to respond extremely poorly (even a few hundred thousand of 1 1/2 billion is a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction of a percent).

News media outlets, like the CBC, choosing not to print cartoons that are not entertaining, and not informative is hardly censorship, it's maturity. Reporting the outcome of these cartoons being printed in other media outlets, and not printing the illustrations themselves, is in fact doing their job exactly the way they are supposed to.

Mr. Burman, I respect your ethical sense of editorial in not replaying, repeating or regurgitating the Danish cartoons. I sometimes wonder if the idea of "freedom of expression" is not a phony thing? What about the INTENTION behind actions designed to capture attention in a current situation? Where is sensitivity, respect or acknowledgement for diversity? A dialogue would be good to discuss impressions in the cartoons. In addition, there is a glaring problem with definition of the person who is seen and understood as being "Muslim". The ugly associations with some images serve only to malign and supress the majority.

I can hardly blame any media for religious cartooning. Religion in most all it's forms represents beliefs that are based in fantasy. While it serves a great purpose for their many followers, it must be kept in perspective by those same. If some members of a faith are unable to reconcile their own beliefs with other's criticism, they do their religion, and possibly their own culture, a disservice.

Specifically, the violence of Islamism that was implied in some of the cartoons, has not been dispelled by the reaction of so many of it's believers.

Briefly, respecting religion isn't the issue. The cartoons don't mock Islam, but the extremists who use it to justify murder. The use of Muhammad just makes the point stronger.

Islamic prohibition against depicting Muhammad shouldn't constrain non-Muslims anymore than Muslims are constrained by the precepts of other religions. The argument for free speech is also moot, since a double standard is clearly in effect (the newspaper refused to print a cartoon of Jesus). But countries with a Muslim majority have even stricter censorship, so they've no right to complain.

What I'd like to see is a cartoon of Jesus riding a US tank past dead Iraqi civilians, or smiling benignly upon the torturers of Abu Ghraib. Muslim terrorists aren't the only ones who use religion to justify inhumanity and self-interest.

Not printing the cartoons was considerate and avoided controversy, but the excessive importance of religion as a measure of morality is something we must deal with someday. Religion is just an individual choice, whereas the common basis of morality should be respect for life--not for free speech or country or religion. If we can get that straight, we might make some real progress.

It is an insult to the many Canadian soldiers that have died to defend our freedoms for the CBC to give in to extremist in such a cowardly fashion. Will Canadian citizens be able to express their true sentiments about Islam after this? Certainly not if your news organisation is unwilling to show the courage to post the cartoons. I have used my freedom of speach to defend CBC workers during their strike, but you have let Canadians down by being so careless in this confrontation. This appeasement is what led to World War 2. It is just disgusting.

i wonder about something? what if every newspaper around the world will publish the cartoons? what if every website would post it? what if every business owner will put the picture on his store?

what would they do if they see that we will not be intimidated by forced religion. god gave us the freedom to choose and false religions takes it away.

I appreciate the role of canadian media not to publish these absured images.Freedom of any kind comes with the responsibilty.It is the responsible reporting when you report a rape do not show the nude picture of the victim.The role of the press is to report their point of view without offending the the others who are opposing you point of view.Billions of Muslims stronglly condemn the atrocities of west and Americans in Iraq and in middle east,but this does not means that they portray Jeses in a insulting way.

Press should be part of solution not a problem.

I am appalled by the CBC's craven attitude sanctimoniously masqerading as principle. I have seen these drawings (it stretches the imagination to call most of them cartoons). Some portray Islam as a violent religion. Setting aside the truth here for a moment, I accept that many Muslims (but certainly not all) might find them offensive, even blasphemous. But it would not be against any law of which I am aware to publish them in Canada. Indeed, you don't suggest it would be unlawful. So why were they not published? Because they could "insult and upset an important part of our audience". How pathetic.

The role of the CBC, instead of reporting the news, is to now ensure no group would be insulted or upset by anything the CBC might report. That is political correctness run amok.I would think that the CBC, above all, would value "freedom of the press". The truth is that many Muslims (perhaps many of the very same group which was inflamed by these drawings)support stonings, suicide bombings and beheadings in the name of Mohammed. Some of these drawings attempt to draw a perfectly legitmate connection between this odious and barbaric violence and the religion that spawns it or, at the very least, fails to restrain or condemn it. The belated (5 months after the event)spasm of violence by Muslims protesting these drawings is blatant attempt to intimidate the west and the expression of its values. Unfortunately, for Canadians, we have the CBC sacrificing one of our most precious and hard fought freedoms, freedom of the press, for the misguided fear of actually hurting someone's feelings. The fearmongers won. Freedom (and the CBC) lost.

I don't care whether the CBC publishes the infamous cartoons or not, but I think your article exposes a double standard when dealing with religion in this country. You ask what if those cartoons had focused on Christianity instead of Islam. I think with this statement you are being dishonest with your readers. Everyone knows its acceptable to bash Christianity in Canada. I can hear "Jesus Christ" uttered as a slur several times a day at work or anywhere else. As a Christian it offends me but I also believe in free speech and freedom of religion. I don't want to live in a religious state like many Muslim countries. If you seriously believe your statement, why don't you publish a series of cartoons defaming Islam, Christianity, and maybe a couple of other religions, and see which gets the biggest reaction.

It's all a question of where one draws the line on free speech. My attention was drawn, once, to a website that (under the guise of 'academic journalism') questioned the authenticity of the Holocaust. This led to a rather intense debate on free speech with a friend of mine. I fall on the side of "free speech -- unless that speech can incite hate, fear, and prejudice." Where do you think this falls? Those cartoons, in my opinion, ought never to have been published, out of respect for people of the Islamic faith. They are in poor taste, and denigrate for no apparent reason. While I abhor the method some fanatics have chosen to address their dissatisfaction and rage, I think it's been an altogether avoidable issue, and all involved need to display a desire for resolution, reconciliation, and an avoidance of such issues in the future. And no, I don't particularly want to see the cartoon. Bravo to the CBC for not airing it.

I would have to disagree with Tony Burman.

I believe the CBC and most north american news stations,papers and the media in general, took the easy way out!

You all let muslim public opinion and the almighty dollar or fear of those things, make the choice for you.

As a proud Canadian I believe the same rights that give all people, (muslims included!) the choice to choose and practice a certain religion also give me the right to voice my opinion about said religion, or people or government, whatever! regardless if those views or opinions are either for or against it and different from yours.

I also believe that being of a different faith that I am not bound by those muslim laws...

As a Canadian in 2006 I can draw or depict Muhammad,Jesus,or the virgin Mary or who ever else I like if I so choose in any way I see fit.

If they are so touched by a god or said prophet and want to live such a spiritual way of life why do the wear masks? Why do they carry automatic weapons? Does muhammad tell them to kill, and destroy anyone who offends them? It's crazy!

The last point I would care to make is Mr. Burman said and I quote "shouldn't the media be part of the solution, not the problem". I say why start to be responsible now? All of a sudden you take the high road? please...the media is mostly to blame for the recent pitbull ban,you know bill 132. you all did such a wonderful job turning those dogs into demons...

In a day and age where "Merry Christmas" offends minorities in canada, but two men can be legally married... I think we are all in trouble. I leave you with this image.

Picture this cartoon...osama binladen telling muhammed that it will be much easier to hijack another plane and crash in to the whitehouse then to hijack the freedoms of CANADIANS.

I think that like most Canadians, I am somewhat conflicted in my reaction to this issue. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in using this right responsibly and with due concern for tha effects my words/cartoons may have on others. Theoretically, I can call an African American a " nigger", but I would never do so. I would also never consider makin fun of someone else's religious beliefs or customs,because i know how annoying it is to me when someone pokes fun at my religion (Roman Catholic) Incidentally, CBC's "Air Farce" takes cheap shots at the Catholic religion lamost weekly, but I have not torched their headquarters.

Why is it that the people who most want tolerance for themselves are so intolerant of others ?

So what is next, book burning because it offends relgion? This is a secular country and all people have the right to express their freedom of speech. I saw a sign held by a Muslim Fundementalist that said 'to Hell with Free Speech' and I say to hell with these fundamentalists.

The decision not to offend, by the media in Canada, as here in South Africa, springs more from fear of reprisal than a genuine interest in other people's sensitivities. There are lots of things which are offensive to Christians, including blasphemous expressions, but the media does not practice self-censorship, and politicians do not speak out. Why? Because Christians don't go around burning embassies and destroying "infidel" neighborhoods. Jesus said "by their fruits you will know them."

There is a direct link between publishing the illustration and violence. An editor who publishes the illustration places more worth on the media than on the lives of people in the line of fire including peacekeepers.

Stop the violence then deal with the issue of the rights of media super power.

Although Jim Reed's February 6th viewpoint effectively covers the issue there are a few points I wish to reiterate and some I wish to add. This is primarily an issue of disrespect and lack of apology and the media’s actions should inform without aggravating the issue. The media coverage of such an item should inform about the disrespectful act without adding to the disrespect. Any coverage that described the cartoons, beyond mentioning that they were insulting depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, probably went too far. The media coverage should also inform about the kind of response that could be expected and what would be considered an acceptable apology. What kind of response to an affront is appropriate? What kind of apology will be adequate? These can only be established by the party that has been disrespected through open dialogue. The media can help the citizens understand why the resolution is appropriate.

The media should also inform on other significant aspects of this issue such as the use of legality as the measure of morality and freedom of expression as the excuse for not needing to apologize. These are shameful attitudes and need to be highlighted as such.

What should be done about a media like the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten? Hopefully, as populations become better informed the popularity of these types of media will dwindle. Unfortunately, until that happens the rest of us will have to deal as best we can with the horrible messes they create.

The media can play an important role but only if it has the ability to understand all cultures and to clearly communicate between cultures. Hopefully as the CBC expands its media partnerships globally it will become part of an organization of media that is able to appropriately inform all sides of such a dispute.

No one, regardless of religous beliefs, whether you agree or disagree, should take it upon themselves to mock another man's relgion. It shows insensitivity and disrespect and maybe too, a little less intellegence. Those in the media should have known better. Did they not stop to think that this would draw bad publicity? And why, in Heaven's name, did they assume anyone would've been amused? Shame, shame on them.

Interesting question concerning an imagined response from an insulted Christian culture... Unfortunately those who claim to follow Jesus are on record as having killed and been violent in his name. Jesus DID overturn merchant tables in the Jewish temple, but we have no record of endorsement of killing people from him, even though he had no lack of detractors or enemies. My knowledge of history is incomplete. What kind of example did Mohammed leave for his followers? Did he kill people and do violence to others?

My what a tangled web we weave when we bring cultures together and stir in oil! Islam is now going through great convulsions as it faces western society and much of the violent demonstrations are directed, not so much against the West as against Muslims trying to break out of the straight jacket of Wahabism - the Muslim equivalent of Fundamentalism. Western journalists do nobody an favour by insensitive abuse of the freedom of the press. We need a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.

With the controversy and tragic incidents of bloodshed, not to forget damaged social and trade relations, I was reminded of a souvenier postcard I kept from my days as First Secretary at the Canadian Embassy in Baghdad during those peaceful and orderly days of Saddam dictatorship. (Of course, as he was on our side he was called a "strongman"). The postcard, issued by the Iraqi Ministry of Information, showed a painting by an Iraqi artist of some holy men (with haloes about their heads) gathered around a table drinking wine and brandy. The glasses and bottles were prominently on display. Behind them on the wall was a painting of a naked woman. This could only be read as a depiction of the Last Supper. None of this, as I recall, caused any commotion among Cristian communities either in or outside Iraq.

This was the last straw that strained the patience of 1,313,984,000 Muslim's worldwide. Although not all Muslim's protested publicly, they protested in their hearts. Most are dealing with this issue by praying for peace in the world and hoping the bigotry and racism will stop someday, and the powerful countries on the planet will stop portraying anyone who looks like a Muslim, as some type of terrorists. I would be reluctant to compare how other religions would deal with the same insult including 2,135,783,000 Christian's worldwide.

It seems to me some folks don't know the meaning of "Put your mind in gear before you put your mouth in motion". All religions practice one common thread. And that is: "Love Thy Neighbour as Thyself". Most of us know one fact. Before 911 happened, most people in the western world knew very little about Islam and Muslims. This raises one question in my mind. What are we learning about it, and who are the teacher(s). One of the teachers is the Media, and publishing cartoons that are suppose to teach social hatred is on heck of a way to start an international conflict. It is like throwing gasoline into a campfire to put it out. Now, who is going to put the fire out, and how?

I can appreciate your /CBC's editorial decision not to reprint the original cartoons. CBC, as a public broadcaster, needs to be politically correct and beyond censure in order to avoid offending any of its Canadian constituents--especially those affiliated with a major world religion. Even when the latter religion has been clearly demonstrated to be a major "holding tank" for large numbers of tinderbox fundamentalist radicals on short fuses(who DO understand suicide bombing and beheading infidels as legitimate religious acts.) And I AM very thankful for being able to exercise my democratic right and freedom to search the internet, to find and view the offending cartoons and arrive at my own conclusions. The very painful truth is, as I see it, that those Danish newspaper cartoons may really reflect a lot of truth about Muslim societies, especially their violence-promoting radical fundamentalist elements. And, obviously, NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED to see these latter folk /clerics angrily reacting and inciting their congregations to more violence and righteous fury when they see some very clear & ugly self-reflections in the Danish cartoonist's mirrors! Who said that Truth is ever pretty and respectful?

The Messiah allowed people to spit on Him, beat Him, and hang Him on a wooden cross. His words from the cross were, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do.". He said we are to love our enemies etc.

To our Muslim friends I would suggest this would be good advice to follow at this time. Let Allah be the judge of those who treat you unkindly or say unkind things about your religion.

Love is much more powerful than violence.

We must not allow anyone to limit freedom of speech or the press with threats of violence.

I do believe in Freedom Of Speech, but I also believe that I am not losing anything by not viewing these pictures. I think this is immature and cruel to make fun of any religion in this way. I try to avoid any journalism like this. I dont need to see these pictures. It will not enrich my life any or teach me anything or benefit my life in any way. Garbage in , Garbage out.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat.

Kipling said it over a hundred years ago. The originators of the cartoon had no conception of how offensive they are and no idea of the reaction which would follow and could perhaps be excused but they who repeated the offensive pictures are insensitive fools.

It certainly does feel appropriate to approach this issue carefully. There is little ground to be gained by rubbing salt into a wounded Muslim psyche and republishing the illustrations seems only to have that effect. However, I am wondering, 'Who is really directing traffic here? and to what end?'

It is beginning to feel to me that the real war in play here is not between Muslims and the rest of us, it is between Muslims and Muslims. At stake is control of the collective Muslim mind. We, the rest of us, are but a foil in this internal Muslim drama. The question on the table is, 'Will Islam follow the course of peace or that of war?' I would assert that there are people out there who have a vested and personal interest in causing mayhem and suffering wherever they can, in pursuit of the war scenario. People are not inclined to be peaceful while they are suffering. It is a tactic.

I think the incident is being used deliberately to attempt to incite riot. I think publishing the illustrations in the first place was a mistake, but what has shown up as a response is wildly out of proportion to the deed. There has to be someone, somewhere gleefully stirring the pot. Anything that can be done, or not-done, to defuse the conflict is good news. Thus, strategically, not-publishing the illustrations is a good idea.

Althoug Muslims generally think that Western media is always ready to snatch every opportunity to defame Islam based on the actions of a minute minority of Muslims, quite aware of many of the beautiful practical teachings of Islam but chooses to keep them hidden from the public eye. However, your courage to keep restrained from reproducing the hurtful cartoons is commendable.

What a Muslim feels may understood by just thinking of how did a practicing christian feel at the making of the movie "The Last Temptations of Christ". However, Islam does teach Muslim to show civil reactions. In his own life, once Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was returning from an expidition that the leader of the hypocrates said the most honored in Medina (meaning himself) will drive the meanest (meaning, God forbid, the Prophet) out of Medina. Hearing this his own son came to Prophet Muhammad (peace and Blessings be upon him) and sought permission to kill his father on this insulting behavior as if someone else did he may develop feelings of revenge later on. However Holy Prophet forbade him to do that, not only that but when the leaders of hypocrates dies the Prophet led his funeral prayer and give his own shirt for his corpses to be burried in. The point I am trying to make is Prophet's own example was of tolerance and forgiveness. I am not saying we are not hurt, or that we should not react, however, our reaction should be civil not a violent one. Thank you. Ijaz Dr. Ijaz A. Rauf, Maple, Ontario, Phone: (905) 417-9127 Cell: (416) 400-9127 Fax: (905) 417-5660

Bravo CBC! I already knew that the descency and values of the Canadians will prevail when others failed to distinguish insults from free speech! Thank you

I am proud to be a Canadian, and usually I am proud of the CBC, but right now I am embarrassed by both Canada and the CBC. Reprinting these cartoons is not about SENSITIVITY - it is about SOLIDARITY. Solidarity with artists and journalists who are living in hiding, and solidarity with a small country under economic attack for upholding one of the central tenets of liberal democracy, namely the right to offend the sensibilities of others.

Tony, thank you for this wonderful article and for respecting all religions.

Judging by the description of the cartoon/s, the cartoonist was trying to say: Many Muslims are bellicose, belligerent beings. I am sure we are all happy to see they are constantly proving him wrong.

We are not all happy, however, to find out, that Islam rules now apply to non Muslims as well, and centuries worth of paintings, for example, may now have to be destroyed. Or, could a solution be found, like, say, they do not visit the galleries? Or buy picture books?

I guess it is too much to hope for, that the mankind will ever give up this religious .... altogether.

Mr. Burman: I applaud your wise analysis of this issue. It's refreshing to see a good dose of common sense applied to this sensitive subject. Though the violent reaction can't be condoned, it's disappointing that the European media displayed such an utter lack of "cultural intelligence" in this matter. Vik Gupta Granger, IN

Curiosity got the best of me and I took a look at the "Prophet cartoons" on the internet. As a liberal westerner, I was not moved at all by the images. And, therein, lay the problem. It did not ofend me, because that is not MY FAITH. People of faith function with much different sensibilities and sensitivities. As a Catholic, I get upset if people deface portraits of the Pope. As a Canadian, I also get upset when I see Quebecois zealots burn the Canadian flag. Both I hold dear, but denigration of either would not stoke a rabid response. However, I know many Catholics and Canadians who would respond very angrily. To hold up for ridicule Muhammad, the father of Islam, must have cut deep to the heart of all Muslim people. Equating the great Prophet to a terrorist bomber would be tantamount to cartoons depicting Christ blowing up abortion clinics. The mainstream western media, as virilently anti-religious as it is, would denounce those renderings in a heartbeat. The publication and further reprinting of these cartoons was a calculated act designed to insight mistrust and hatred toward Muslims in a Europe that is, on the whole, afraid to welcome any more immigrants from Islamic countries. The bombings in London and the riots in Paris are seen by smaller, more isolated European states as a cautionary tale. The violent response by a few hundred demonstrators in a couple of isolated incidents gave the isolationist whites of Europe what they wanted - further reason to fear Muslims. For Muslims, it showed them that the western world is going to continue to sow seeds of hatred. The intelligent and measured response by CBC must not be lost on Canadian Muslims. Nor should the hate infused diatribes of the Mullahs who used the publication of these offensive cartoons to fuel the rampages in Beirut and Damascus.

Some in the media have decided to check their brains off at the door so to speak, without proper accountability for their words and depictions. This is smut journalism as far as I'm concerned. Good work Mr. Burman for outlining for us proper ethics in journalism. Larry Williams, Surrey, BC.

I would like to thank CBC News for not showing the cartoons. As a Muslim, I am deeply offended by the cartoons, but condemn the violence that is happening. I agree with your statement that media should be part of the solution and not the problem. Thank you for respecting Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

I agreed with your position on the issue and I am proud of this moderate or rather considerate approach that is so typical of Canadian. Some people may see it as timid or not clever enough, but that is what is needed in a multicultural and multiracial society. We cannot know everything about the various cultures and religions of our fellow citizens but we can all be more humble and willing to learn from each other. Not a dominant group "teaching " teaching everybody else. It is real respect when you show interest in anothers culture or religion, not that you have to adopt their views. "Understanding" is what most people ask for. It may be a good time to start listening to others' greivances without a dismissive attitude. To try to solve any conflicts we must first listen without judgement. Let's not worry so much about who is right or wrong in this crisis, but hear the reasons for all these long suppressed resentments beneath all this fury. When the aggreived parties feel that they are being heard, they may calm down enough to listen to reason rather than over-ridden by their emotions. I hope this crisis would turn into an opportunity for us to really listen to each other without condesending attitudes.

Ridiculing others-regardless of provocation or whether we want to stir discussion- is always wrong. Perhaps the CBC will take this enlightened approach when it comes to all of its programming including comedy and televison news- not just the print media. This is a lesson for all of us to be sensitive to others. I hope that Muslims around the world (though I highly doubt it) will protest just as strongly when Muslim papers contain anti-semitic and anti-Christian stories. Will Muslims around the world now challenge their governments and religious leaders to allow communities of differing religions and opinions to co-exist or will they continue to persecute them (ie. Bahai's and Christians in Iran are in constant danger, Christians in Iraq and all over the Muslim world are constantly persecuted or killed)? More than 166,000 Christians are killed in our world each year- most of them in "Muslim" countries- with no protest from Muslims. Had the Danish reporters exposed statements from the Qu'ran which contain hateful statements against non-Muslims (which it does)before printing the cartoons, I believe the discussion would be more to the point- who is trying to censor who? The Danes did not do the right thing by their offense but let us not forget that Muslim newspapers have long been anti-anyone not Muslim. We can all learn from this sad experience. May love win out!

Mr. Burman, we thank you and CBC for the ‘responsible’ media you are demonstrating. It shows the level of maturity and leadership in the Canadian press. We as Muslims completely condemn any cartoons about any religious figures and symbols, specially the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. The purpose of freedom of expression is to create healthier, stronger and more diverse societies, and not to gratuitously insult and revile the deeply held beliefs of others. It is obvious that the cartoons fall short of anything meaningful.

Though it is a right to express our opinions and dissatisfaction about these horrific caricatures, expressing discontent should be done through peaceful means of demonstrations, through economic and/or political actions and by pushing for laws against satirizing any religious figures. It should not have to resort to violence and threats that is not the solution.

I too applaud the approach that the Canadian media has taken with this issue. I believe that the very first printing of the cartoons might have been done innocently. But the subsequent publications and the hard line taken by the media who did so can only be described as F-ing stupid. Since 9-11, relations in the world have been on the point of combustion. Only a complete idiot would wave a match.

As a journalist and a individual I have to disagree with Mr. Burman's stance on this issue. How can we expect change if we do not allow citical voices?

The cartoons I've seen - printed by the few media outlets with the courage to do so - are a valid criticism of those extremists who have hijacked Islam for their own purposes. Instead staging violent protests against cartoons protraying Moslems as violent, perhaps it is time for some serious soul searching on the part of the global Islamic community.

Similar cartoons exist by the dozen of other religeous icons. God, Jesus and Christianity in general were freqently lampooned on popular shows such as The Simpsons without a single violent protest. The protests are ridiculous and totally out of proportion with the so-called crime.

It seems only that a lack of foresight led these editors to reprint those cartoons: if they had depicted something "less foreign" -- such as Prince Harry in a Nazi uniform -- perhaps the editorial reaction would have been different. Outrage, rather than bemusement. It seems reasonable to suggest that if we do not treat such material symmetrically (i.e., how would I feel if the equivalent were done to me?), then we are doomed to continue to misunderstand and offend each other. It seems to me that having a global community means necessarily that decision makers must *think* globally, while acting locally.

While I agree with your remark that these cartoons where probably more an "act of stupidity" than anything else, I do not believe that this seemingly gives the Muslim world now justification to run amok. - I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that these cartoons were originally published in September of 2005. We are now in February of 2006! Did it take everybody so long to realize that these cartoons were published almost 5 months ago, or does it suit someone's agenda to make a big thing out of this stupidty now? If the latter is the case, who benefits from putting is on the news now? I don't know the answer to this question, but it sure makes me wonder.

Dear Mr Burman or whoever vets these; Your made the right decision for the wrong reasons. First they came for the cartoonists. And I said nothing. Then they came for. . .

Perhaps you are familiar with the rest of the story of how the Nazi extremists took over democratic Germany. No I'm not exagerrating the threat to our society. When people in other countries can use violence to intimidate our free press into censoring some dumbass cartoons, we have a problem. Mr Burman, you should be ashamed for betraying your Danish colleagues to a lynch mob, which is basically what your column advocates under the pontification of "accountability." The burden all seems to be on one side. Your version of the controversy is bad journalism. Like most of the comments here, it shows an appalling ignorance of the sequence of events. If you really want a balanced viewpoint go to The Guardian website from Britain - they can hardly be accused of being a bunch of Islamophobic rednecks, but they provide a much more accurate perspective than our so-called national broadcaster. You're in denial. Or maybe afraid. And I don't blame you. To my Muslium friends I ask - if we respect your Prophet, will you respect our fear?

Like others, this is the first time I've ever felt compelled to write a letter to the Editor, because the viewpoint of myself and many Canadians is not represented here. By your own poll, over 30% of CBC website readers favour stopping immigration from hostile countries. That should tell you something. And no, don't call me a racist, because I'm an immigrant myself, and support most socially liberal positions. Thank you.

Tony Burman replies: I appreciate the sincerity and passion of your view, but you make mistaken assumptions about our motives. In making the decision we did about the cartoons, we were not “in denial” or “afraid”. You cited The Guardian and its “balanced viewpoint”. Well, as you should know, The Guardian also decided not to publish the cartoons for exactly the same reasons as the CBC. You are also mistaken that there has been “an appalling ignorance of the sequence of events”, either by the CBC or by many of the contributors to this site. I think the sequence is very well-understood. And it would be irresponsible for us to make an important coverage decision such as this – that, ideally, should serve the interests of Canadians and reflect their sensibilities – for fear of “betraying (our) Danish colleagues to a lynch mob”. In my view, that – simply – is not the issue.

What a wonderful Canadian conversation has emerged from this article about CBC's decision not to print the cartoons! Reading through the letters was an education in itself; I especially appreciated the perspectives of Muslim Canadians.

I also appreciate that the debate is being laid out along lines of Respect and Responsibility, as well as Freedom. In our increasingly interwoven world of peoples and cultures and religions, we need some principles upon which to operate together civilly. Thank you.

Muslims are banned from depicting deities in other religions so as not to offend? I guess they are not banned from destroying other deities. Remember what was done to the great Buddhist rock sculptures in Afghanistan in the name of Islam. When the shoe is on the other foot, don't expect the same sensitivity.

I agree that the media should be responsible in terms of content such that they are freely able to express information without insulting anyone. Then again, published information sometimes results in somebody finding it objectionable, especially the subject.

I hope that this drive towards "responsible media" is not fueled by the bullying threats of violence. A writing or illustration must never be responded to with violence or threats.

Draw a cartoon back depicting the stupidity and ignorance of the Danish newspaper editors and cartoonists, I say. Or demonstrate loudly but peacefully.

Tony Burman replies: I agree with you that the media should never cave in to “the bullying threats of violence”. In this case – as it applied to the CBC and, I suspect, to most other media – this didn’t happen. In fact, we made the decision at the CBC not to broadcast the actual cartoons last Thursday morning, which was before the pattern of violence took hold. But I certainly agree that we should be vigilant about this risk.

Thank you CBC for your thoughtful response to this volatile situation. Regardless of our indiviual religious persuasions, it is important to be respectful and to act in a morally upright manner. You have accomplished both.

Thank you CBC for not adding fuel to an already volatile powder keg. Although I agree with the precepts of free speech and the rights of the press, I am wholly against needless cultural intolerance, general ignorance between the East and West, social manipulation, thinly-veiled culture bashing and threats of retribution from any side of the perceived divide. Meaningful dialogue, cultural and global understanding and respect do not begin with marginalizing or belittling a person or a group's faith.

The Danish press' decision to publish the caricatures and their subsequent reproductions in other global papers was, and is, in extremely poor taste and is certainly lacking in foresight. As you correctly pointed out, the press has a responsiblity to monitor its content and to use discretion when dealing with extremely volatile subjects. The CBC's decision not to publish the caricatures is not censorship, it is common decency, sound judgement and a sign of maturity. Considering the state of the world today, we are all very aware that these qualities are sorely lacking.

Again, thank you for using your heads rather than following other news outlets down the slippery slope of sensationalism and needless provocation.

Lost in this debate, and ignored by Tony's otherwise excellent explanation, is the impetus for the original publication of the offending cartoons and the irony of the global reaction. The cartoons were commissioned as part of an examination of self-censorship within the Muslim press in Denmark. One of the cartoons depicts an editorial cartoonist looking over his shoulder in fear while he attempts to tackle the assignment.

I understand why the CBC chose not to broadcast the images, and it may have been the only viable decision for a public broadcaster. But I still believe it was the wrong one, given the censorship context. How better to illustrate one of the major weaknesses of Islam (its oppressive prohibition on even constructive criticism of itself) than by drawing simply pictures?

Surely publication accompanied by a mature exploration of the political and social context that brought them into existence in the first place is preferable to yet more self-censorship.

Tony Burman replies: I understand your point and respect it, but you approach the issue from a different perspective than mine. As Walter Lippmann once wrote: One’s view of ‘reality’ largely depends on where each of us initially places the ‘searchlight’. I’d agree with your argument if I felt, like you do, that our goal should be to “illustrate one of the major weaknesses of Islam.” But from our perspective, that wasn’t the issue. For us, the question was simply whether or not we needed to show these offensive images to explain the controversy. We felt that, in this case, the answer was ‘no’. We would have come to the same conclusion if similarly offending images had nothing to do with Islam.

Why are so many people uncomfortable or scared to challenge and scrutinize contemporary religion? Is it because everyone subconsciously knows that religion could never pass the rigors of reasoned inquiry? Or is it because 'offending' religion results in the irrational reactions (not always violent, but irrational nevertheless) such as we are witnessing today? I believe that in today's global environment where individuals are capable of wiping out millions, NOTHING should be left to blind faith or lack of investigation. Doing so is a very dangerous, irrational and quite frankly, idiotic. People are always sensitive to offense, but religious people seem to be particularly so. This is strange since their beliefs are apparently immutable, so why the anger? What does it matter what some non-believer says? How can you control someone out of the realm of your control? By definition, you can't. Such is the hypocrisy of religious belief.

"O Canada"--Tony Burman Tells it like it is; Use of discretion, yes we can BE the solution, not the problem. Proudly, a Canadian, Robert Seiden

I agree with the writer who said that no institution should be free from scrutiny, and lampooning is a tried and true stimulator of much needed debate. Some issues are bound to be more sensitive than others. Lampooning is a freedom of speech which was hard won by our ancestors who sometimes died or were at least imprisoned protesting via the new printing press back then. Today, the religious right of whatever stripe would have us slowly erode these freedoms so that they can each remain immune to public and world scrutiny. In history texts for example, we hail lampoons against the 15th century Catholic church, as being a critical ingredient in much needed societal change. The church and the pope were consistantly attacked for their corruption. Those who braved loss of life and limb in the name of freedom of speech, are deemed far-thinking and creative in retrospect. Royalty and politicians have always been great targets as well as religion. Any organization which secures its position through fear of reprisal, including an outright bogus death sentence, is a danger not only to every individuals right to self determine, but to freely think, whether muslim, christian or whatever. Religious bullying has got to be more deadly than a room full of wmd's. If we could all debate the issues without bloodshed, I would say that the cartoons did their job of reflecting a need for understanding on all levels, including a need to understand each other's values.

Tony: I agree with your decision not to show the offending pictures, and I am proud that most of the Canadian - and indeed, North Ameican - media choose to follow the same route in their reporting of this incident. As several of the commentators on this matter have already pointed out, Freedom of Speech has limitations: that is why we have anti-hate laws.

Congratulations Mr. Burman. Stay the course. You have made the right decision on behalf of Canadians. In this case respect trumps freedom of the press. Thank you. Patricia Houston.

All of the media are under a similar scrutiny…. Really? Is there one Arab and Islamic nation where the same conditions prevail as they do in the West? I think not. In fact, what do we know of the Middle Eastern media? Very little is my guess. And this is not only because we Westerners do not care. It is also the Western media itself which has decided that covering the Middle Eastern media is simply not newsworthy enough.

There is another very important reason why we care so little. The Middle East is characterized by a strong paternalistic clan culture (how many women protested in those streets?), an inflexible religion (it is the word of Allah Himself in Arabic. Any translation or interpretation would debase this perfection) and totalitarian governments whose prime aim is to prolong their own reign. The predominantly secular, affluent, and democratic society which characterizes the West only serves as a painful reminder of what the Middle Eastern youth has to accept every day at home. The cartoons are simply only the latest in a string of exploding protests of frustration veiled in accusations of the West disrespecting Islam.

Self censure as is suggested above is definitely not the answer. Stronger still, playing voluntary hostage to such threats is hypocritical to our own values and sends the wrong signal. Why do the Western media not call upon the responsibilities of the Middle Eastern powers that be? Why does the CBC not report on how the West is portrayed in the Middle Eastern media?

Tony Burman replies: The CBC, in countless ways, reports on how the West is “portrayed in the Middle Eastern media” and reports all sorts of other news from that part of the world. We have been doing this through frequent trips to Arab countries and from our news bureau in Beirut. In the past five years, CBC News coverage of Arab countries has increased more than anywhere else in the world. And this extends to well beyond Iraq.

As a Canadian Muslimah living in Ghana I am almost a celebrity. But coming from Ottawa, I can say that I understand all sides of this debate. The approach taken by Mr. Burman is considered, sensitive and I think worthy of Canadians in general. The issue in my view and from my own perspective is one of VALUES! Canadians are laudably respectful of the feelings and sensitivities of others, a reasonable and measured approach. And yet.....and yet. The problem is VALUES:

Most of us who are thoughtful people have trouble making sense of our World as we find it. The response of a Canadian to this existential question is to go out for dinner or lunch. On Sundays mornings in Ottawa, most Ottawans go to Brunch. A Danish guy, not wanting to offend Danes, might go out for a beer or have one of his own manufacture. Filling the stomach with pleasing food or drink is a substitute for filling the Being with what it really craves: Spiritual fulfilment and understanding.

To a Muslim, on the other hand, Islam is What Makes Sense of the World. One bases one's daily life on Islam and its values and practices, and the World suddenly makes PERFECT SENSE: everything falls into place and everything is as it should be, or there is a good reason for it to be the way it is. Only Allah knows that reason, but that's OKAY.

For that very personal basis on which one's life is based and ordered to be attacked is a very personal and outrageous thing. It is this understanding which is the missing quotient in this discussion, as I see it. And the fact that Islam has been smeared and victimised for the past thirty years in the (highly-censored, as you say.....) Western Media for the economic/political gain of a few too wealthy media owners is despicable and partly responsible for the sudden outburst among Muslims over this insult. But Canadians - God Love 'Em! Long live Peace and Tolerance and thanks for this fine article. Peace Be With You!

I consider this editorial more along the lines of typical Canadian political correctness than dealing with the issue. Consider the Canadian perspective, we ground the Japanese, Ukranians, Germans under our heels during the wars, we put the natives and eskimos where they couldn't speak up, all the while we said the culture of the east had to trump all other minorities, even when this culture is a minority compared to others. We made sure the plum industries and roads we built in the east to ensure they have whatever they could possibly wish for, and when Salmon Arm or Saskatoon speaks up for their share we pretend they or the need doesn't exist, worse if you are further north.

Until Canada become democratic and moves away from party politics nothing will change in this country. We will look the other way when humour such as this or against our minorities is published and say tut-tut, when these organizations become criminal in their efforts such as committing murder of inocent civilians we'll say oh well, they are just uncivilized but we want to keep them that way by our action.

Until we start addressing injustice head on whatever it is and forget this political correctness BS, and say it like it is, Canada will remain solidly in the debating club of countries, all talk and no action. That's my opinion, John Cott

"What if those cartoons had instead focused on Christianity? And on Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary engaged in unspeakably offensive acts?"

Are you honestly insinuating that we would see violent riots and foreign embassies in flames in the streets of Ottawa or Washington over some comic strip? The fact of the matter is, no matter how much the cartoons were in bad taste, nothing justifies the level of hatred, violence and destruction these riots have resulted in. Many (not all) in the middle east have to realize that not everyone in the world shares their beliefs and some opinions, however ignorant, must be tolerated. The actions of the rioters, however, are only reinforcing the stereotypes these cartoons are exploiting.

Tony Burman replies: I’m not aware of any sensible individual who is “justifying” the awful violence that is going on. And I’m certainly not. But I’m not sure how publishing the cartoons in Canada would have helped things at all.

With all due respect for Mr. Robson from Saskatoon... the drawings can be found in many other websites, so it really is or would have been usless for the CBC to reproduce them. I applaude the CBC for having the right frame of mind when they made the decision not to reproduce something that was meant only to get publicity... good or bad.

There is "Freedom of Religion"....what about "Freedom FROM Religion"?

You have touched on the most important aspect of the issue. That is the depiction of the prophet as a terrorist. Even George W. Bush, of whom I am a staunch critic, as he readied himself to "smoke out" the terrorists of their holes ,repeatedly announced that it's not a war against Islam but rather against a few who misuse the religion. The gross generalization, labelling Muslims as terrorists and inherently violent, conveyed in the cartoons is what I found most appalling.

That said, I do not expect non-muslims to share the anger of muslims with regards to just the blasphemous nature of the cartoons which is the simple drawing of the prophet. At best, the muslim world would be glad that this rule is simply not violated. I don't understand how compliance with this Islamic commandment is viewed as impediment to the freedom of expression. I think the acts of the European media is childish and immature and done out of spite. It's no surprize that it was met by idiotic, immature and spiteful behaviour by the muslims hooligans in the arab world of which I am truly ashamed.

This is riduculous. I'm a geologist. Everything I do denigrates fundamentalist Islam because my science refutes the Koran's history of the world. The same goes for fundamentalist Christianity.

Does this mean that I should stop publishing my work because I might offend some people? Of course, the answer to that is no. Any rational person would realize that (and, when dealing with fundamentalism, it is important to realize that rationalism normally gets tossed out of the window in most arguments). Essentially, living in the free world does not include the right to be free from the expression of ideas you don't like.

What we're seeing are two things: 1) The reaction of moderate Muslims who think that living in the free world means that there are guarantees that they will be protected from criticism, whether justly or unjustly applied. 2) The reaction of fundamentalist Muslims, who believe that the only way to deal with opposing viewpoints is through violence. I don't want to live in a world where my "freedoms" would be safeguarded from either of these two groups.

Tony Burman replies: Okay, point made. But I think you left out a third group: 3) The reaction of many moderate people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, including journalists, who believe that in a civilized society, you can have honest, rational and even fierce debate about crucial issues and values without resorting to offensive and gratuitous insults that serve only to inflame emotions.

I would say it is sensible approach by CBC not to engage in a sensitive issue of religion. I don't think anybody remembers a similar issue started by play company in Birmingham UK last year trying to expose rape in a sikh temple. That sparked violent protests that resulted in the play house being damaged badly.

The mob would have set it alight but quick thinking and acting by the play house to stop the play saved it from being fired.

No one should abuse any religion and the media should be made aware of the sensitives. Freedom of speech doesn't mean free for all say what you like how you like. There are people who will not allow this. Whats happened is the result of freedom of speech gone too far.

I respect peoples rights to their religion and beliefs, but there is a huge difference between writing a cartoon and being part of a murderous mob. I have no sympathy for religious zealots who can not tolerate insults on paper to the extent that they demand the death of the messenger or any in their path. This is definitely an eye opening experience for the world on how religions mix and mingle, and I hope it's a growing up experience for faithful Islamics. I would have to say that if the roles were reversed and Christians were rioting in the streets, I would be very ashamed to be a Christian. The CBC should have shown the cartoons and stood up for freedom of speach.

I greatly support CBC position, this is not to show the original cartoons. Here are the reasons: - The freedom of speech is not absolute, but already limited (and for a good reason). You cannot shout "Fire" in the theater, you cannot talk bombs on the plane or you cannot deny Holocaust. - The sensitivity of people to particular issues varies greatly, and it is not for us to decide what kind of insult or offending/degrading message should be tolerated, and for which a forceful response is justified (it does not mean I support violence!). I guess with a little bit of an effort I could create a very offensive cartoon against almost any group of people. Of course, sometime one may not be aware of the sensitivity, however this is absolutely not the case here. - You have to responsible for the consequences of your action. You have full right to wave a red flag, but if you do that deliberately in front of a grazing bull very near of a crowd of innocent people, you are at least partly responsible for their injuries. - If anything, it seems to me that the major reason for publishing (and then reprinting) the cartoons has been just to create a backlash and further antagonize Muslims and non-Muslims, and the authors succeeded "admirably". Freedom of expression is a great thing, but there must be some redeeming value in what is said if the consequences are predictably tragic. - Whereas all Moslems have the reason to be offended, violence displayed by some of them is not the accepted way of response. However, creating of deliberate offences is not helping the vast majority of Moslems, who are nonviolent, peaceful and tolerant, to restrain the militants and to prove to them that this is not a part of a wider assault on Moslem people. Wojtek

I do understand the position that the CBC is taking, but I do not fully agree with it. Why not post the link to the cartoons on your website and have us (the public) form our own opinion? Since you are taking this stand, I am looking forward to your organization finally using the word "terrorist" when reporting. Finally, since you are taking this stand, I find it very hypocritical that these Muslims find the cartoons offensive, but have no problem showing hostages being tortured or beheaded! I look forward to consistent reporting, not more anti-US and anti-Israeli verbal garbage!

Tony Burman replies: The CBC, like other media, has been crystal clear in describing – in words – what these cartoons showed. If people want to see them for themselves, they are not difficult to find on the internet. But it’s not the CBC’s role to facilitate that. As for your two other points: The CBC frequently uses the word ‘terrorist’ when reporting - but we simply do so with care and restraint. And the CBC, of course, does not show images of hostages “being tortured or beheaded”.

Mr. Burman, I appreciate you taking the moral high road to this already lethal situation. We as world citizens, no matter if we are a leader or occupant, owe it to future generations to begin extinguishing the flames of hatred. We can no longer provoke each other then run and hide behind the banner of free speech. There are deadly ramifications that result from what we say . . . people die. Editors, writers, and cartoonists are not a group of naive innocents. They do know that what they say will insight others to violence and thereby create news, thus perpetuating a murderous cycle. This is, in my opinion, irresponsible, illegal and immoral.

ks and stones will break my bones, but words CAN surely kill me, and the person beside me, and the person beside her, and the baby in her arms . . .

I certainly agree with the statement the" media should be part of the solution not the problem and I respect the CBC for that position. Too often visual media and some of our TV staions are using the news as a soap opera "to be continued", "tune in on Monday" and so forth. I am getting to the point I may only read.That way I can move past anything I do not see appropriate with great haste. TV is becoming geared to the soap opera watchers where hourly news is concerned.. "wait until Monday regards Eileen Mountain

· I get the feeling that freedom of speech is being used to provoke & implement hidden agendas, just like the name of god, freedom and democracy has been used by various people or so called leaders. · Connecting Islam and Bin Ladin is not much different then Christianity and Hitler. · Europeans before they set out to educate the rest of the world about freedom of speech and human rights should remember that their own record on these topics throughout history is probably the worst. · Respect, Love, and most importantly accurate and objective knowledge is what different religious or ethnic groups need to achieve for each other. · It was very obvious that this was going to happen as a reaction. Muslims are more sensitive in protecting their holly values because. From one narrow perspective their material goods are already being robbed and have been robbed by Christians of course they are going to do more to protect their spiritual values. · I am not sympathetic at all with those who fell into the trap and are burning things and making their religion look so outdated · My personal thoughts are linked with percentage of people who have a higher thinking process. Only 10-20 % of people are universal thinkers ( the smart people who can link the connections of various events) The rest is mostly concrete thinkers on whom the religious beliefs and leaders have the most impact on. The world has a lot to loose from polarization and these guys who printed those cartoons either think they have something to gain from it or are profound idiots who could not see what was coming.

I congratulate and respect your approach to this issue. Respectfully Ziya Aras

Actually, surprise, surprise as I thought common sense no longer prevailed among giant corporations. Hats off to the cbc for treating this subject with the sensitivity it deserved.

Tony you have shown a great deal of respect in your article and I applaud you for that. Your thoughts, in my opinion are part of the solution as you have chosen not to inflame, but rather to educate.

While I cannot condone the violence that has erupted from small segments of the Muslim community worldwide, I do admire their collective passion for what they believe in. Too bad that the same collective passion couldn't be directed towards ending suicide bombings, the abysmal treatment of women and the public beheadings that their faith otherwise turns a blind eye towards.

Certainly these issues have political, religious and international overtones which make them complicated to solve. But the capability to demonstrate such passion so quickly over idolatry, reveals that the ability exists. Is it just a matter of priority then? Is the treatment and relations of human beings - how we interact on this small planet - less important and less of a concern than protecting the image of the Prophet? Or is it just an easier, cleaner target to defend in this international arena?

Hi Tony, Yours is the only article or voice that I have become aware of that makes these good points. I agree with your views. Lloyd

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. While I vigorously support free speech and a free press, it seems that along with those freedoms should come a little circumspection. I have not seen the cartoons in question, but it seems to me that the same point could have been made without using the portrayal of a known sacred figure.

On the other hand, the frenzied violence demonstrated by some serves to prove the point the cartoonist was attempting to make.

It also seems to me that the extremists are getting a bit of karma. Remember when the Taliban destroyed ancient stone carvings of the Buddha some years ago? When one disrespects another, that disrespect often comes back around.

You are dead right about respect of all deities in Islam - be they Christian or Jewish. No portrayals whatsoever! Many Muslims have been arguing over similar points such as, self-censoring and sensitivity but one thing is for sure - most feel that the media did not come out and show respect and sensitivity towards the Muslims, as expected.

The banning of publication of the cartoons is like banning the news.

Tony: I applaud the CBC for its position on "the cartoons." I am a print journalist who has, so far, survived 36 years (after Rye High) in my ink-drenched racket. Your explanation of the CBC's intelligent and compassionate stance on this troubling matter makes me damned proud that I support The Corp. You took the high road, sir.

By the way, advertisement-less CBC radio, the best in the world, is my prime source of news and has been for nearly 40 years

Your approach highlighted the need for the media to be accountable to the content of their coverage and how it is presented. I have followed the story through the CBC. Not seeing the cartoons has not diminished my understanding of the issue. Thank you for taking a sensible approach.

Dear Sir, I'd like to thank you for your balanced view -- one that I share -- and no less CBC for showing the Muslim community due respect in not showing the cartoons. You are right. It says a lot about Canadians when (even) media outlets have react in the same respectful way. After comparing with the rest of the world, it reaffirms my pride in being Canadian. Europe has a lot to learn from us, indeed. A Canadian Muslim

Mr. Burman I am a Muslim. I recieved a forwarded email, with a video that pictured Jesus singing Glroia Gaynor's "I will survive", in a very shameful way. I was so offended that I had wirtten a long email to The Pope (I have a copy of that), describing how offended I was that someone would do that with a Holy Figure, whom is not only Holy for Christians but for Muslims as well. Although we forbid impersonation or drawing of any holy figure, I am sure that if the Church approves that with Jesus, they approve it with great respect and elite dignity to match the Holliness of this figure.

Our messages are if cartoons that were to mock, Jesus, Moses, Jacob, Virgin Mary, Angels...etc we would have denounced that as well.

Thank you for respecting all religions by your wise and responsible decision, and assure you that we respect and appreciate the responsible freedom of speech specially that many of the Arab and Muslim world lack it in presence of our ruling regimes.

I would also like to thank Herald Sun and The Age of Australia for taking similar steps. Best Regards Mohammed Teleb

I think the Canadian media's decision to not reprint the questionable cartoons was correct. There is a time to show respect, whether it be, as in this particular case, towards religion, or victims of violence, or people in pain who request privacy.

I disagree with the violent response that the publications have incited, as violence is not an answer. It would have been much better to use diplomatic methods and teach the world more about Islam. Taking lives and destroying the peace and property of innocent people is wrong. I have my doubts that those inciting such violent responses have motives solely focusing on expressing displeasure with the act in question.

What Mr.Burman has written about the Cartoons and Religion is extremely important and should be impressed on all media. A reasoned voice like this is sorely needed.I do not think that freedom of speach should be considered in this context.

unfortunely we the global community do not have the choice of who we have reporting the facts, however our faith will allways steer us in the wright direction that is what happend here,thankyou for having it

This story is more complex than just a percieved insult to a religion. At least 2 of the cartoons depict asharp rebuke to an abuse of religion, namely Muslims using their religion and the prophet to justify acts of violence-violence against moslems more often than against others. These protests effectively are stopping any possible discussion of that aspect of the religous divide. Sadly it also hides the fact that a very significant portion of muslems are aware of some of the shortcomings of their religion. For example, after consideration of christianity, I have renounced my belief leaving some people aghast. For a Moslem such renunciation is as much of a crime as blaspheming the prophet. Lastly, there is some confusion about muslims using any kind of an image. A dialog requires being able to look at both sides, but one side is more open to self criticism.

While I am not a letter writer to media outlets, I feel compelled to express my opinions on this very important subject. As a Muslim Canadian, I have been watching with dismay what is going on around the world on this very disturbing issue. I cannot understand how any self-respecting person, let alone a trained/educated journalist, can characterise the commissioning and publication of these offensive cartoons as being anything to do with freedom of speech. Where does Mr. Flemming Rose's right to free speech crosses the line and tramples on my freedom of religion by denigrating my beliefs? My religion asks that we not draw pictures of Allah or of Prophet Muhammad so that each Muslim can have her or his own image of Allah and the Prophet and not be influenced by the vision of others - a truly noble concept! While I cannot condone the violence these cartoons have instigated, I can understand the outrage Muslims around the world are expressing. The Flemming Roses of this world are succeeding in making mischief with their Islamophobia. I would be as outraged and dismayed if the cartoons were about Jesus or Moses as my religion teaches me to respect all Prophets and religions that preceded Prophet Muhammad and Islam. The Vatican issued a statement on these cartoons for which I am grateful and for the position the CBC has taken. I agree whole-heartedly with the comments above. I hope that the CBC will continue with this policy even if things continue to boil over around the world. Thank you.

We muslims believe in Christ as a messenger of God,and I have never heard that any one in my religion having depicted Christ in cartons or in "uncompromising" drawings, all because of the respect for Christ.

The Danish newspaper showed lack of respect for the second largest religion at our time, with well over one billion follwers, and ignoring the consequences at this sensitive time.

I'm also lost for words to find the reason behind the printing of the cartons, to prove what ?. Free speech is the right of every one, but it should not be abused to this extent.

In your commentary the following was posed: Should the media insult an important part of its audience for absolutely no public value? Perhaps, the more relevant question should be, 'How should the media define what constitutes public value?' From the manners in which different news outlets tackled this story, it's obvious the definition is subject to many interpretations; some, as you've noted, more self serving than others.

But there's a line to be drawn between deciding what constitutes the public good, and deciding what's good for the public. And the extent to which the media co-opts the responsibilities of the public and its political institutions dictates in large part whether it is, indeed, part of the problem or the solution.

Freedom of speech by all means, however, at all times with respect for others particularly when it comes to societal differences. I am very happy that CBC showed that respect in choosing to report on but not show the offensive cartoons.

The world is full of bad jokes and hot tempers. Neither of these could be the real news story of the Danish cartoon catastrophe. So I felt compelled to review the past five months of news coverage, mostly in Europe. What I found was distressing: weeks and weeks and pages and pages of opinions. In contrast, your short editorial on the issue this week put a spotlight on the questions.

One thing I treasure about Canada and Islam both is the mostly untold story of a shared love of learning. It was the prophet Mohammed who wrote: “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave.” His followers went on to create the world’s greatest centres of learning and innovation at a time when Europe was stuck in the Dark Ages. Meanwhile, what stands out so brilliantly from my vantage point as a chronic world traveler is how much Canadians in particular enjoy getting educated. Almost everyone here is always learning something, be it cooking, aikido or biochemistry.

Love of learning has three inevitable consequences: absolute tolerance for all views; a deep sense of obligation to share what is learned; and alienation as many questions challenge established conventions. It is those often discomforting questions which get buried in times of change, and often the alienation which leads to social unrest and dysfunction.

We need socially aware media to help us with the sharing effort, which has every potential to heal the alienation of today just as it did in the Middle Ages. I hope the CBC will do more than opinion surveys of Canadians as the world’s worst caricature goes center stage. Instead, I would like to see even just one hour of CBC time devoted to a program that was produced by people new to the CBC, that featured people never before interviewed, and that asked and researched the many questions for which we still need answers. No opinions necessary!

Please help us change the world, Mr. Burman. I know our eyes will be shining as you do.

In my opinion it is "wrong" to make, publish etc. inflammatory comments that serve no purpose other than to cause pain to others but one should be allowed to do so if they wish. It is even more "wrong" to retaliate with physical violence and destruction and those doing so should be severely punished by a court of law

I would have preferred you make the cartoons available on your website, although I think you have shown good judgement and taste by not promoting them. These images however are a source of great controversy and now violent protests worldwide. For whatever reason, they have touched a very sensitive nerve in Europe and the Middle East, which suggests there may be an important issue here that people have not confronted. Now that this issue has exploded, there is nothing to be gained by holding back. I think you should link the images on your website and include a warning that they are very offensive. Doing otherwise will only keep Canadians from participating in what is sure to be a global debate.

It was good to see your articulate response to this issue.

It matters to me most that no common sense was applied in evaluating the usefulness of these cartoons. Your rationale for not re-publishing them gives me confidence that our public broadcaster is considerate and has a concern for the people that it serves.

Thank you again for clearly articulating your position

Thank you for your statement. The CBC's handling of the issue has been professional, courteous, and respects the limits of both freedom of speech and religion, and it is refreshing to see our media not resort to sensationalism and exploitation to attract readers.

This issue goes far beyond the cartoons; the protests are the result of years of marginalization of the Muslim community in Europe, with the cartoons being the final straw. It is worth exploring what Canada has done right in it's immigration policies in developing a country that people of all faiths and cultures live together in harmony; truly, it is a model worth following.

Dear Mr.Tony Burman, I am proud of our CBC to not print nor show those offensive cartoons in Canada. And I am evenly proud that we have an 'anti-hate legislation'. Freedom does not mean that one can slander people as and when we feel like it!! The papers that did print them dishonour democratie. Keep up the good work, Bill Ysselmuiden

I applaud the CBC for their handling of this crisis. It shows respect and restraint; understatement and subtlety should be qualities that the media aspire towards on a regular basis. Officials who represent the offended communities in this fiasco should express their condemnation on behalf of their brethren. How did this escalate and who is fueling the fire of such outrage?

Tony Burman replies: I think that is an excellent point, and that is where a lot of the journalistic scrutiny is now directed. As offensive (in my view) as these cartoons were, there clearly is something at play here that transcends 12 cartoons. And I agree it’s in everyone’s interests to understand it.

I'm truly shocked that the subject of freedom of speech could even be used in this whole controversy. It saddens me to think that there are editors and cartoonists who feel they must belittle a religion and for what? I guess the world is not tetoring enough on conflict that now the Danes have to get on the bandwagon and start this new controversy. Thank you CBC for not showing the cartoons and also the interview on Sunday morning in Britain was truly enligtening. Yours truly D. Gallant

In response to your article, I will point out that god, jesus, and the virgin mary are satirized in mainstream culture almost daily. Yet do we see mass protests in the streets and the burning and defacation of certain buildings? Of course not. The CBC is spineless for not publishing the cartoons. How are we, as educated viewers expected to form opinions on global affairs without having been told the whole story?

Tony Burman replies: You’re obviously entitled to your opinion. But – for the record – CBC News has never “satirized…god, jesus and the virgin mary” in a similarly offensive way.

These cartoons, I believe were a grave insult to many people of the world. In this controversy, I will be examining how Stephen Harper deals with this international issue. I would have preferred that Paul Martin had still remained the prime minister and I will be carefully scrutinizing Harper's responses to this issue.

A number of persons have already explored the theme of reciprocity, and I would have been very interested in your full comments in that direction. It seems to me that threatening to kill people, burning property, and and dressing up as suicide bombers does very little to dispel the perception of a violent and intolerant religious practice. Indeed, this is the very comment that the cartoons may have made in the first place! You ask how media response might have been different if the protesters were Christian. The fact of the matter is that Christians are not beheading people, or blowing themselves up, or calling a religious war. And where, good heavens, is the voice of moderate muslims? Let's not kid ourselves - If this had been a Christian controversy, moderate and reasonable voices would have taken over this debate a long time ago!

I can't understand the rabid reaction to this cartoon. I mean, I understand the underlying religious aspect, but I can't understand the violent rage.

I appreciate the media response I've seen from some Canadian newspapers. The articles that include the fact that there have been peaceful demonstrations in Denmark and France, that the fire and death in the middle east is not the only Muslim reaction.

It's too easy for the medai here to paint Muslims as fanatic maniacs, but on the whole, they aren't. Just as we don't see all Christians reflected in the violence seen Northern Ireland, we should remember that Muslims are also humans and as individual as anyone else.

Dear Tony - You raised a very good question, yet failed to answer it in equality. The response of the Canadian Press has for the most part been prudent in this affair although there reason for doing so is somewhat suspect. Sadly however , their record when it comes to the Christian and to a lessor extent, the Jewish faith has not been as stellar.

Maybe the next time someone takes a similiar shot whether in prejudice or for notoriety at the expense of our faith, you and your colleages will show similiar restraint.

Tony Burman replies: I agree with you. I hope that “next time” our approach at the CBC is consistent, and if it isn’t, please challenge us. But let’s remember that the issue here is not simply “taking a shot” at religion. This controversy is about more than simply ‘satire’.

There are many aspects to this debate. If the cartoons had depicted Jesus (and I have seen cartoons depicting Jesus in a less than complimentary fashion in my lifetime) some Christians might have been upset but it is unlikely that they would have burnt an embassy or two in protest. It is unlikely that you would see Christians rioting in the UAE in response to an anti-Christian article in an Iranian paper. My feeling is that the Danish paper might have been a little insulting, the response has been way over the top. Keep in mind also, it has been Muslim extremists who have equated Mohammed with terrorism. Danish cartoonists simply picked up the ball and ran with it. Regards, Bill

I think that looking at the overall picture in social and historic terms, we see the drastic results of peoples being fed a single ideological diet for far too many years, with accompnaying fear of dissent of any sort. That Islam was deeply offended is a given.But as to the followers themselves; they cannot agreee on points of theology such that they will bomb each other's mosques. There is a complete lack of appreciation on the part of the Muslim diaspora for the concept of individual freedoms that we accept will , at times, allow the dissemination of the repugnant and unacceptable.

Other religious leaders/icons are subject to open discussion. In the past both Christian & non-Christian religious symbols have been satirised heavily sometimes with severe reactions, however today most societies are responsible enough (educated enough) to tolerate criticism & satire. Islam needs to clean out the radicals who commit atrocities in the name of Allah.

Anybody who wilfully denigrates another without considering that you merely provide an instant forum for unleashed violence drags us all down. As a species we don't seem to learn. Part of the reason is that here in the west, religion has ceased to be the core of our existance. That said, I haven't seen a cartoon of any southern fundamentalists lately.

Thank you for your insightful commmentary, Mr. Burman, concerning the recent controversy over the cartoons portraying Muhammad. I pleased and encouraged to see someone in your position speak out unequivocally on this subject.

Too often we conveniently forget - or choose to ignore - that no medium is value-free or ethically-neutral. What is selected, or not selected, for report in the media constitutes an interpretive and engaged process, one that is certainly not 'objective', as is the commonly held ideal. In essence, all decisions regarding dissemination of information are moral decisions.

What we call 'freedom of speech' is not simply a right, it is a responsibility. If we truly value such virtues as respect, compassion, and integrity, we must be strive to realize them in everything we do. Raising the banner of 'freedom of speech', in this case, entails a shirking of this responsibility.

All media are socially engaged by definition. If we believe at all in bettering society, then your simple observation, Mr. Burman, is entirely apt: Shouldn’t the media be part of the solution, not the problem?

I recognise and understand your view here. However, as I watch the reactions in parts of the world, I also am convinced that 99% or more of those who have made these violent reactions have not seen these images. Yet, they are to be understood for their actions since they have been offended. How do they know????

Dear Sir, As a Canadian follower of the religion of Islam I sincerely appreciate the manner in which the CBC has reported these unfortunate events. Your decision is considerate and wise. Thank you!

Though, I understand the deep love and emotions felt by my fellow Muslims all over the world for our Prophet Muhammad however I am saddended by the manner in which some of us are displaying (violent demonstrations, flag burning..) our affection for the Prophet and our dislike for anything derogatory to his character. I wish we could have rationally and peacefully made our point. S. Ashraf Ali Toronto, Canada

My personal opinion is that if you want to fight for freedom of expression, you should use something constructive as a test case. Unfortunately, choosing and researching a relevant issue is a lot harder than drawing a series of overtly racist cartoons.

religion deserves no more respect than any other organization, no more respect than any other group. we are free to express ourselves and this includes the right to mock and make fun or and satirize that which we find wrong or evil or stupid. there is much stupidity in relgion to say nothing of savagery, intolerance, hate and incitment to violence. we have the freedom to make fun of those who do such things and that includes fundamentalists of all sorts, both christian and islamic and hindu and any other. freedom of the press!!

i think the cbc has taken a cowardly stand in not fighting for the secular values of a liberal society over the dogma of religion bruce elniski

If the press is incapable of objectively defending the right of any newspaper to publish critiques about any political or religious figure, than the right to freedom of press is seriously being threatened. No political/religious fraction has the right to coerce photographers/newspapers/journalists from publishing critiques. I am disappointed in the cbc.ca on it's neutral stance.

Finally - some sense. "Press freedom" sounds so light-hearted but brings the heavy burden of press responsibility. Just because you can show it, doesn't mean you must. I believe that the news organizations that have re-published these cartoons as "support" for their peer institutions on the claims of press freedom have done so without regard to their own responsibilities.

Being a Muslim I was very much offended by the cartoons and really appreciate CBC’s approach of not airing it. I don’t know how those who are talking about the ‘freedom of speech and press’ have forgotten about the movie ‘The Last Temptation of the Christ’, and the reaction it generated in the Western ‘civilized’ world. If my memory serves me right, I don’t think it was very different…at least an individual did lose his life in France.

I wonder why these same protesters do not seem to demonstrate in the same fashion when it comes to the musings of people fronting for Al Quaeda on media outlets such as Al Jazeer? An example would be the televised (internet) circulation of the beheading of hostages taken and mudered for what were obviously unattainable goals.

Western comedy is based on satire. English humour in particular is based on self ridicule or social ridicule. This examination of different aspects of society is heralded in the west as part of freedom of speech. We have the ability to vote with our dollars or by turning away from the offending points of view.

An example here would be Howard Stern. I, as an individual chose not to listen to his show as I find it offensive. When enough people find it offense, he no longer has a soapbox. We do not resort to violence or murder or fatwas to emphasize our wills.

When the opinions expressed cross strong enough boundaries, we rely on our judicial system to take action. Example here would be Ernst Zundle.

So where are the protests over the comments of the new Iranian leader?

Part of the blame lies with the leaders in the countries that allow - even encourage - violent demonstrations as a form of protest. I'm guessing the fundamental difference is the separation of church and state.

Simon

Congratulations on this stance and the logic behind it.

Sure, we all have the right to speak freely. Personally, I believe this right is paramount. The media organizations were entirely within their rights to display the cartoons. However, just because it IS a right, doesn't make it right. In this case, the media *seemed* to reprint these cartoons in a spiteful way. An analogy might be in order: One man chooses to insult another man's wife and children. Despite freedom of expression, the now-insulted man chooses to punch the first man in the face.

Who would you side with? Wouldn't anyone say, "Yes, the first man was within his right to say whatever he wanted, but he was asking for it." And the retaliation by various Islamic communities certainly is understandable, although perhaps grossly out of proportion to the 'crime' that was committed. I'm sure the poor Danish fellow that drew these cartoons is fearing for his life and couldn't use "freedom of speech" to dissuade an Islamic person holding a knife to his throat.

Fact of the matter is, this Danish fellow and the Danish, French, German, etc. media were wrong for insulting a whole religion. I wouldn't expect people in Latin America (for example) to react too favorably either if an Islamic newspaper portrayed Jesus as a killer. Just my thoughts.

The media needs to excercise maturity in relation to such matters, not its "chip-on-the-shoulder" insecurity. To me this means having the courage to demonstrate that while it perhaps has the right to show such images, respect for any religion means that it should not go beyond the boundaries that cause the resulting furor. If any network or news organization feels the need to flex its muscles in this regard, why not make the statement that while it believes it has the right to show such images, it chooses not to, out of respect for the beliefs of followers of that religion. It's time we stopped feeling that our inherent freedoms are so much at risk that we have to launch "trial baloons" 24/7 to prove that they're still there!

I couldn't agree more with your comments than if I'd written them myself. In this age of even critisizm against the state of Israel being labeled as anti-semitic, I hardly think any of these media outlets would have printed blatently anti-semitic and crudely drawn racist cartoons similar to the ones printed by the Nazis and called it freedom of speech or expression.

Would these same outlets have taken up the cause of an individual who in a very crowded building yelled "Fire", causing a stampede and death, when no fire existed, and call that "Freedom of Speech"? No!

With freedom comes responsibility and neither the cartoonist, the media outlets who printed this garbage, or those calling this a freedom of speech issue seem to understand that.

I can only appplaud the CBC decision not to show the original cartoons which the faithfull to Islam and many others have found offensive. I hope the muslim faithfull recognize this conciencious act on the part of the Canadian media as well as others (CNN & BBC).

As a muslim, I do not understand why is it easy for muslims to react whenever there is a provocation from non-muslims and do nothing when their own governments are doing something worse than the curtoon.

The true of the matter is that the absence of governments that defend/reflect the muslim population encourages those who want to provoce mulims. It is about time for muslims to stop reacting to non-muslims whenever they do, and dismantle all the existing system of government in the muslim world and replace them by governments reflect the wish of the people, and at the same time build mutually beneficial relationship with non-muslims. Adam

As Canadians we are quite callous to the routine degradations of Christianity in text, image, audio and video. I am certain that if it had been Jesus or Mary depicted in insulting ways we would not see street rioting and violence against Western embassies. At best the issue might arouse official scorn and address from a public relations spokesman of the Vatican or other denominational head. This ambivalence to insult in the West I believe stems largely from our cherished belief in freedom of the press and the sense that special interest groups cannot expect their unique beliefs to be accepted by all those around them. An Islamic belief has jurisdiction only within the context of faithful Muslims and those Nation-states that openly identify themselves as Islamic States. That others outside of this context, and the press in particular should have to abide by and be especially sensitive to a particular doctrine within Islam is maladroit. The press, and Westerners in general have the right to criticize or caricaturize society at large and those in society with specialized beliefs or doctrines simply have to suck it up and ensure internal faithfulness. Muslims must recognize that non-Muslims have no need to adhere to esoteric doctrines that make sense only to the internal workings of Islam and not to Western values in general.

With that said, as a devote Christian person learning to live in harmony with my own special values and the values and rights of my society at large, I feel deeply sympathetic for Muslim people who have had their sensibilities violated by the publication of disturbing images of Mohammed (peace be on his name), as my sensibilities are routinely offended by the press. However, this over-reaction of violence is unjustifiable as the secular press has an equal right to hold values inconsistent with Islam or Christianity. Burning down embassies cannot be consistent with the struggle for peace that the Prophet (PBHN) aimed at.

Mr. Burman, thank yhou for your article on this issue. As a Christian I have thought the same and if the roles were reversed I would hope that the Christian community would be actively protesting such a show of disrespect for our beliefs.

I did not relaize, until I read your article, that "Islam forbids depictions not only of their Prophet but of all Deities, whether of the Christian or Jewish faiths. To do otherwise is to mock and ridicule the faith."

I appreciate the respect shown to all faiths in this edict and this statment should provide further insight into why their has been such an outcry by the Muslim community.

To say that the media that showcased these offensive cartoons showed a lack of judgment is an understatment. Lack of respect is obvious.

I only hope that withing the Islamic community the extremists will not be allowed to exploit this situation and the faithful followers of Mohammed for their own destructive ends.

As a Canadian Muslim, thank you for the approach you've taken in covering this issue. I've been here all my life, so I know the value of a free press and freedom of speach. I also know the reality of requiring Hate Laws. There has to be limits and balance. Like balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of the community.

There's always a better way of doing anything. The CBC turned these offensive cartoons into words, thus covering the story, making the point (stupid or not), encouraging discussion, and not offending.

Muslims too have to balance their response. We have the right to demonstrate, protest and boycott. But we don't have the right to incite violence. Discussion is far more productive than revenge.

But dialogue requires respect on both sides. Ironic that the issue itself is about respect, by not depicting any Prophet or Diety.

I'm proud of the way the Canadian media, and Canadians in general, have handled this issue. I'm a flag waiving Canadian, and its exactly this inclusive, balanced character that makes us great.

I find your article condescending and arrogant. According to the Middle East, these cartoons have everything to do with religion. Cartoons depicting the pope as a German shepherd were printed. Talk about mocking and ridiculing faith. I don’t remember Christians the world over starting riots, burning buildings, endangering lives, and calling for executions, as seen over the past few days. No one denigrates religion more than those who use it to incite hatred in others. I’m not excluding any religion; hate crimes have been committed in the name of religion by everyone at one point in history. There will always be offensive cartoons; there will also always be offensive news reports. Showing executions on the news is far more offensive than cartoons that were printed months ago in the media, and are now being used as an excuse to riot. The media should be asking why the cartoons, in all their stupidity, are now causing riots, instead of last September when they first appeared. What changed in the past months to make these cartoons so offensive? That would be covering the event. You say you choose not to insult and upset an important part of your audience by showing the cartoons. We seem to be changing a lot of things not to insult “important” audiences. Should the rest of us not be offended by this? Should we start rioting? Are we starting to muzzle stories as you claim other countries do? There doesn’t seem to be much difference between their form of censorship and yours. Yes, we are all accountable for what we do, but we are also accountable for what we do not do. Suppressing information because you don’t want to insult or offend a segment of the population is not a way to be accountable. Maybe the media should take a look at what it reports and how it reports it. Maybe a clearer understanding on the part of the media and the audience would be more productive in dealing with issues. Instead of saying no to a story, a better way would be to say why.

Tony Burman replies: I regret your reaction because I intended to be neither condescending nor arrogant. It was simply an explanation about a decision we made. Your reference to cartoons “depicting the pope as a german shepherd’ is beside the point because the CBC never has – and never would – broadcast these cartoons. For exactly the same reasons cited in my piece. Your comment about “showing executions on the news” is also irrelevant because the CBC never has – and never would – broadcast these images. For exactly the same reasons cited in my piece. You suggest that the media should be asking why these cartoons “are now causing riots, etc”. Well, that’s what the CBC has been doing in a multitude of reports on CBC Radio, Television and CBC.ca. In fact, that has been the main emphasis in our coverage.

I have seen the cartoons in question and I think the range that they cover has to be adequately described. Not all of them show the Prophet or Muslims as violent, though most do. Two of them are respectful by most Western standards - one being an illustration of a dignified man leading a caravan, which Muhammed did for a living. Another is of a man with a crescent for a halo, implying his holiness.

I have yet to see any news organization explain the range of these cartoons from the dignified to the outright racist - hook nosed dark skinned violent turban wearers who with scimtars drawn, who aren't the Prophet. The cartoons are being too easily simplified in their description the debate about them, and it would have better served it to have shown them.

I applaud the CBC's decision not to show these depictions of Mohammed, we refer to as cartoons. Some networks that did show them are the networks that create news rather than report it. Shame on the person that create the cartoons as well as the people that chose to publish them. At a time when we try to understand the Islamic faith, we should be sympathetic of the Muslim people who suffer at the hands of extremists who claim to be a representation of their religion. If all Christains were judged by the Hitlers of the world it would be a sad day. A Muslim coworker of mind once gave me a book called "Understanding Islam"; it was not a ploy to convert me, but a chance to educate me. We later went on to be great fishing buddies and true friends, with the highest respect for each other and our beliefs. He would give his life for me and I for him. It is to bad the world is in such a termoil over power and greed and not religion as it is so often disguised.

Many of us thank you and applaud the restraint of our Canadian media. As to denigration of Christian icons, such entertainments and images do exist in the public domain. For example the cross as employed in Satanic rituals . True, they are rarely seen in national newspapers. The principle is the same . It is better not to react, as this inflames mutual antagonism. Many in the Moslem community have responded this way too. thank you michael

Thank God I'm Canadian! Freedom of the Press comes with responsibility, so I praise the CBC and Canadian Press for acting responsibly with this story.

There are many Canadians who live abroad and reach out to other cultures. Canada's international reputation of tolerance allows us to build solutions with our global citizens. One stupid act in the press can tear down years of work. Once again Canada's responsible behaviour has allowed us to navigate a difficult situation.

I wonder why the media have no respect for religious figures. Jesus and Mohammed are facts, prophets, who came to help humanity not as terrorists.

Now that Media know that these cartoons considered offensive for muslims, shouldnt they understand the sensitivity and stop that !!!!

This is now not about freedom of speech, its now about respecting each others beliefs.

The discussion of any belief respecting the belief followers is acceptable. Degrading beliefs makes people lose respect for each others !!.

Muslims are also not happy the way jesus is symbolized in funny ways in cartoons.

I wonder If the newspapers republished the cartoons dare to publish a similar cartoon for any famous politician.

I thank the CBC for their understanding the sensitivity of this matter.

In this instance I applaud the CBC. Discretion is the better part of EVERYTHING. I do agree with another writer (although not with their examples) that troubling, if not disturbing, footage and reportage has been seen and heard on the CBC in the past. Perhaps the CBC should show more discretion in general.

The cartoons, as with other perverse material of allsorts, are available on that archive of popular culture, the web. There is no need to re-print or re-post these unfunny attempts here.

Finally, as for the question of freedom of speech or freedom of the press in general... Choices are made constantly, obviously. How come we don't get the New Zealand rugby scores or reviews of every film that comes out of Korea? How about even the snow removal schedule for Nepean Ontario and the maintenace records for my neighbour's car? The public has a right to know!

Excellent response, CBC. It's clear the cartoons have nothing to do with the freedom to get out information. The last such battle of real substance I remember is immediately post 911 when a lot of media, under intense pressure, were cowed into supporting any George Bush interpretation of and reaction to the horrific event. What the pro-publish crowd doesn't get is this time the argument isn't about freedom of speech; no one has said they can't publish the cartoons. The argument is whether should we publish such inflammatory and uninformative material. And there the answer is obvious: if you publish anti-Musilim, then why not anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-women, anti-black, anti-French, anti-English? All these groups can be easily offended with very little imagination. But a newspaper that does that is just a slimy rag and everyone knows it. Thanks again, CBC, for doing us proud.

Unfortunately, I don't feel that the same respect is always shown by some people of the Islamic faith as the CBC and most western media have shown by not publishing the cartoon images.

As a Canadian, if I saw a Canadian flag burned in the streets of an Islamic country would it be appropriate for me to threaten or attack an Islamic country's embassy or people of the Islamic faith here in Canada?

This may not seem to be a comparable example, then they do not understand my feelings about my country and how important the Canadian flag is to me. I am not religious, but I am extremely proud to be a Canadian.

No matter what a religious faith decrees, it should not supercede the right of every human being to live in peace regardless of what their religion may be.

I am shocked at the possible danger that any Canadian citizen overseas, including our Armed Forces, may be in because these offensive cartoons have been published in a magazine in Canada. As a sign of respect for people of the Islamic faith, they should not have been reprinted, but threats of violence should never have been expressed by people of the Islamic faith if they had any respect for other human beings. An expression of disgust or a boycott of any newspaper or magazine that published the cartoons would have been a more civilized manner to respond to the issue.

This controversy exemplifies the problems that can come about when two different cultures hold different beliefs.

Reluctantly, I have to say that the CBC is reinforcing a double standard in not publishing the cartoons while having no issue with showing pictures and video of people burning flags or effigies of George Bush in street demonstrations around the world.

In fairness, I would have to say that at least the CBC does recognize the unnaceptable response of threats and violence to the cartoons while understanding the reasons for the reactions from people of the Islamic faith.

When Ezra Levant called the CBC chicken and invited letters to the editor to the Western Standard I visited the Western Standard blog. Not only did Mr. Levant attack the CBC but so did many of its readers. It was a stark contrast to the tone of the writers here; almost as if I was in another dimension. For those not faint of heart I suggest taking a gander. It may enlighten us as to the real reason why the Western Standard reprinted the cartoons.

I only have one comment to make on all this.

I don't see the other dominant religions in the world strapping bombs on individual's chests and kidnapping people in the name of their god.

Only one religion is doing this. Ever watchfull in Afghanistan JKS

Having seen some of the cartoons that were reprinted in a French newspaper, I think they have very little artistic or comic merit. That said, I don't believe they should be censored, and I think seeing them is an important part of forming an informed and critical opinion of them.

As a queer person, I am offended by organized religion's condemnation of homosexuality, a recent example being the council of Catholic bishops in Poland's condemnation of a Council of Europe resolution condemning violence against homosexuals. To the queer community's credit, not even its most radical members have ever organized a violent protest. Virtually all groups in society, whether set apart by their nationality, ethnicity, sex/gender, sexual orientation, physical and/or mental ability, political views, religion, etc., are frequently subject to criticism and mockery, which may be broadcast/published in (mainstream) media, or not. Respecting people's right to free press with reasonable limits (e.g. hate propaganda) and freedom of conscience and belief, including the right to hold negative opinions of (religious) groups, than one's freedom of religion.

I applaud you Mr. Berman the CBC for having the good sense to not publish the cartoons. You decision clearly shows signs of wisdom and sensitivity.

Although freedom of the press is an important value, I believe there are a number of reasons why the cartoons should never have been published:

1) The cartoons are hate speech - one of the cartoons for example depicts Mohamed, the leader of Muslims worldwide with a turban in the shape of a bomb. It is in effect, branding Mohamed (and by extension) his followers as terrorists.

2) The cartoons were published in a certain environment, where Muslims are increasingly being portrayed as violent terrorists. Mr. Ezra Lavant criticized the CBC saying that the CBC published a picture of an artwork where a person urinate into a bottle and put a photo of Christ in it. No one however, would say that that particular piece of lewd art brands all Christians a certain way; or promotes an already contentious stereotype.

3) Two wrongs don't make a right: The people performing those violent protests are only a small percentage of the approximately 1.3 billion (source: adherents.com) Muslims worldwide. To justify airing the photos owing to the actions of some extremists would be tantamount to saying that "the dissemination of hate speech is acceptable" because "some people did some violent acts."

5) The violent reaction to the cartoons and the question of whether or not it was appropriate to publish them in the first place are two separate issues. Hate speech is hate speech. It is always wrong; and against the law. Again thank you for your decision. You clearly have the wisdom required to hold the top job.

I am a Canadian Muslim. We live in a civilised society. I am not talking about the 'Western' or 'Islamic' civilisation. I am just talking about the civilasation that encompasses every educated and sane person.And lampooning any religion aor religious leaders in NOT a good sign. Our civilisation teaches us to respect. To draw and publish these cartoons in such a bad and insulting manner is nothing but to gain the cheap publicity. It's a sign of sick mind. If one doesn't believe in any religion it's ok. It's your own decision but to throw mud on others or to incite is NOT a sign of a good civilised person. This was a deliberate act of provocation. It's good to see that North American media has chosen not to reprint these cartoons.

The CBC has got it right; the Western Standard is DEAD wrong. First, these cartoons are racist and I consider their publication bordering on being a hate crime; what could any reasonable person possibly hope to convey by depicting the Prophet Mohammed, someone revered by one fifth of humanity, with a bomb in his turban? Perhaps that all Muslims should be viewed as terrorists? Second, there are reasonable limits to freedom of speech; no one has the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre just for the kicks, as this would needlessly endanger lives as people panic to get out of what they think is a burning building. By publishing these 'cartoons' while knowing full well the reaction, however irrational it may seem to be, they may incite, the Western Standard has essentially yelled FIRE and needlessly risked the lives of Canadians abroad. For example, there will be nearly 2000 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan by end of this month; over a dozen people have died there in some of the worst violence seen to date over this incident. NATO solders from countries that have published the cartoons have been attacked. Do some of our soldiers now need to die in this reckless exercise so-called ‘freedom of speech’?. The Standard has essentially given the radicals in this country and elsewhere with a perfect opportunity to drive a wedge between the general populace and our troops and provide another rationale/ justification for them to be targeted by suicide bombers. The Standard claims that it is just covering the news, like they are some bystander in all this; in fact, the Standard and the media in general 'ARE' the key players in this so-called 'story' that has now claimed many lives around the world. The irony is that only person that finds these cartoons funny is perhaps Osama Bin Ladin himself; they have perhaps ignited the ‘class of civilizations’ that he has been trying to provoke for years now.

When this news agency chooses not to reprint the pictures, it shows how CBC does not stand for what a news agency should stands for. It has been said that these pictures are more for entertainment then news .... for that I agree, but once lives were threatned, property destroyed, they now become the NEWS issue, and now it should be allowed for people to see them a judge for themselves.

Congratulations to the CBC, BBC and other responsible media outlets who understand that 1000 words is worth a picture.

Viewer/readerships are intelligent audiences and can 'view' these drawings vicariously through the eyes of the journalists reporting them.

Freedom of speech come with responsibility. Because you 'can' does not mean you 'must'.

Dignity, respect, love, honor - of all persons, races and religons - these are the things on which we should pride ourselves.

Stories come and go - careless misdeeds are less easily forgotten.