2.09.2006

other voices

Yesterday's Globe And Mail mused on "Why the global rage hasn't engulfed Canada". Some Canadian Muslim leaders weighed in.
Why haven't Muslims in Canada taken to the streets in large numbers to protest against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed? It's not because everyone in Canada is so nice to each other, say Canadian Muslim leaders and Islamic scholars. It's because Canada's multiculturalism is complex.

They say Muslim immigration into Canada has been different. So has Muslim integration into Canadian society. And so has the political action of Canadian Muslim organizations around the highly sensitive issue of Islamic religious fundamentalism.

The difference is illustrated by events in France in 2004 and Canada in 2005, said Tarek Fatah, a leader of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

In France, few if any representative voices within the French Muslim community were heard in the news media speaking in favour of a law banning conspicuous religious symbols, such as the traditional Muslim head scarf, in public schools.

This was the case even though a significant percentage of French Muslims had no problem accepting the law within the cultural context of French secular society.

The powerful Muslim opposition that was heard, Mr. Fatah said, came from "the mosque structure" but "the mobilization of moderate Muslim voices never happened."

In contrast, in Canada in 2005, the news media pointedly reported that the most vociferous opposition to an Ontario law permitting Islamic religious tribunals to arbitrate family and marital disputes came from Muslim organizations themselves.

In Mr. Fatah's view, the mainstream Muslim community in Canada has recognized the need to take what he calls "ownership of the word Muslim." It has become actively involved in Canadian political life and not marginalized as is the case in many Western countries.

"It's a shift, for Canadian Muslims, that has not happened anywhere else."

Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, said violent demonstrations simply aren't a fit with the Canadian Muslim community -- which, because of Canada's immigration requirements, he said, is the most highly educated Muslim community in the world.

"They would find legal and peaceful means of protest far more productive," said the imam and professor at the University of Waterloo. "With demonstrations, you cannot have full control over who does what."

His organization, the largest Muslim umbrella group in Canada, has actively discouraged demonstrations over the cartoons and has spoken publicly against the violent protests -- as has the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Earle Waugh, a University of Alberta Islamic scholar, said most Muslim immigrants to Canada do not feel sidelined, a factor significantly fuelling the protests in European countries.

"There is no sympathy within the Canadian Muslim community for a radical approach," he said. "No sympathy for the fundamentalists."

Canada has had no legacy of Muslim colonies like that of the British and French, and no history of migrant Muslim guest workers like that of Germany.
Interesting stuff, and it makes sense to me. Any thoughts?

Radical Muslim protests in the US, of course, are out of question. No one wants to be swept up, jailed and deported.

31 comments:

aaron b said...

ybkkehThank you Laura, this is an interesting perspective, and rings true. Here in Montreal there's a protest planned for Saturday, and there seems to be a lot of division within the Muslim community about whether to go ahead with it or not - whether it would simply make matters worse.

The other day the woman next to me on the bus was on her cellphone complaining about childcare it sounded like to an ex-husband. Then the topic turned to the cartoons, and she spent a lot of energy trying to convince him that they were in a foreign land now, and the cultural rules here are different. "They have no problem making fun of their prophet, so they view humor differently than we do." She was also making an argument for tolerance; that things work differently here than Algeria or Morocco. Almost more interesting, the general attitude towards this woman by other passengers on the bus changed from annoyed to tender.

Best wishes,
A fellow American-turned-Canadian

Andrea said...

how odd that i never even clicked in to the lack of protests in canada until you just posted this. I come from an area of the Fraser valley, bc, that has a huge population of muslim and due to calling many my friends and coworkers it would never ever occure to me that they would consider protesting in this way over this issue.
I am not shocked they are not protesting, I am not proud of them either because it is just as I assume it should be. I would be down right flabergasted if they protested in any way outside of the courts.
hmm what an interestin article.

On a totally different note, hubby got his passport returned today with immigrat visa inside in TWO WEEKS! I am freaking out with too much that needs to be done.
Canada I am coming home!

L-girl said...

Thanks for your comment, Aaron B - and for your good wishes. Welcome to wmtc. :)

I am not shocked they are not protesting, I am not proud of them either because it is just as I assume it should be.

There's nothing wrong with protesting per se. Protests don't have to be violent. It's violent protests - calling for death and destruction - that are at issue.

L-girl said...

On a totally different note, hubby got his passport returned today with immigrat visa inside in TWO WEEKS!

Congratulations!!! Do you mean you have two weeks to pack up and leave? Holy shit.

L-girl said...

Almost more interesting, the general attitude towards this woman by other passengers on the bus changed from annoyed to tender.

I know just what you mean. A nice picture. :)

James said...

There's nothing wrong with protesting per se. Protests don't have to be violent. It's violent protests - calling for death and destruction - that are at issue.

Even without the violence, these protests are just so inane... Do they really believe that their prophet is so weak and fragile that he's threatened by (really lame) cartoons?

And what's worse is that they've been successfully baited. A conservative newspaper commissioned cartoons depicting Moslems as viscious, vindictive, and violent, so they protest this through viscious, vindictive violence. They're playing to a stereotype.

Two signs in close proximity in recent photos of the violence: "Islam Teaches Tolerance of Other Religions" and "Death To Those Who Insult The Prophet".

Andrea said...

no nono not two weeks to leave, hehe thank god! It only took them two weeks to receive then stamp and then mail back the passport. Freaky after all the helish crap they gave us before.

Andrea said...

I am not shocked they are not protesting, I am not proud of them either because it is just as I assume it should be.

There's nothing wrong with protesting per se. Protests don't have to be violent. It's violent protests - calling for death and destruction - that are at issue.


Didnt clairify myself, I mean protesting on this particular issue. I totally agree that there are times and places when protest works and should actually be done. I just dont think this is the time on this issue.

L-girl said...

They're playing to a stereotype.

Yes, of course.

My point, however, is that people have the right to protest, no matter how inane any of us find their cause.

I don't like the attitude "aren't the Muslims here in Canada so good and smart, they're not taking part in these silly protests". If people feel strongly about something and they want to demonstrate, there's nothing wrong with that.

L-girl said...

no nono not two weeks to leave, hehe thank god! It only took them two weeks to receive then stamp and then mail back the passport.

Whew!

I totally agree that there are times and places when protest works and should actually be done. I just dont think this is the time on this issue.

Gotcha. :)

L-girl said...

A conservative newspaper commissioned cartoons depicting Moslems as viscious, vindictive, and violent,

To be fair, it was worse than that. It wasn't "Muslims" depicted, it was Mohammed - who is never supposed to be depicted at all.

Naturally I agree that the vehemence of these protests are ridiculous, but there's terrible prejudice on the newspaper's side, too. As people keep saying, you wouldn't see Jesus depicted this way in a modern newspaper.

It smacks of something from the 19th Century, when black, Jews, Irish, Chinese (etc) were routinely caricatured in newspapers, and no one gave it a second thought.

Wrye said...

This isn't really about cartoons, so far as I can see--all parties involved (including the original newspaper) seem to have just used them as a pretext. The connection I personally would never have gotten is the one between Saudi Arabia needing to deflect Muslim criticism of its poor handling of the Hajj in January (many Muslims from poor countries such as Pakistan died on the pilgrimage this year) and the sudden appearance of widespread outrage in countries across the region--three months after the initial publication. As everyone's favorite Brooklynite would say, what a coinkidynk.

Philisophically, satire is the weapon of the weak against the powerful, a means of speaking truth to power. When a rightwing newspaper turns that weapon on a tiny minority (Muslims are less than 5% of the population in Denmark) it's kind of a chickenshit move, (which is why Dennis Miller has so comprehensively lost it--rich people making fun of poor people simply aren't that funny) so the original publication doesn't impress me at all, either. Is it hate speech? I still haven't good a good enough sens eof the context. But as some have said, the point isn't censorship, it's common courtesy.

L-girl said...

Philisophically, satire is the weapon of the weak against the powerful, a means of speaking truth to power. When a rightwing newspaper turns that weapon on a tiny minority (Muslims are less than 5% of the population in Denmark) it's kind of a chickenshit move

Well said. That's what I was trying to say, above. We can say "What are they so upset about?" from where we sit - and we can say, "it's their right to publish whatever they want" - but why was the cartoon published? To show that they could? To show that they are not "caving in" to Muslims? It shows stark insensitivity.

And frankly, it doesn't matter how we view such a cartoon, because it wasn't directed at us.

M@ said...

Two quick things on this, because I'm mostly in agreement with what everyone else has said here.

- I noted from the start that it is the less powerful protesting against the most powerful. This should indeed colour every assessment of this issue.

- I wonder whether Canada has a more racially integrated society. I know or have worked closely with several devoted Muslims, who have no problem going off in a corner to pray during the workday and so on. I recently spoke with my aunt in Rochester, who has never actually spoken with a Muslim on any personal level. I wonder if my experience is more typical in the modern western world, or hers.

Great discussion here.

Nerdbeard said...

I have also felt that the cartoons have become an irrelevant pretext. Just something for both sides to rally around and say, "our people are more righteous/civilised than your people." Both sides get to wallow in moral indignation, which everyone likes to do.

Though, I do see value in the original commissioning. It *must* be okay to question authority, even if that authority is divine. It *must* be okay to question religion itself!

Who'd have thunk that the next Satanic Verses would be a handfull of doodles? Which makes me wonder, with all this "outrage", why no fatwa?

Lisa said...

Hi.

I absolutely agree with Wrye and Laura on this one. Satire is meant to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted – not insult the marginalized. A few of the cartoons did make me think immediately of those demonizing caricatures of Jews, and Japanese during World War II (though frankly most of them were totally innocuous – a few actually made fun of the editor having commissioned the cartoons in the first place). I also think that the right wing media (in Europe and North America) are really provoking anti-Muslim sentiment by focusing so heavily on the violence. Yes, that element is an important story, but it does leave many Westerners with the impression that all Muslims are violent and crazy – when in fact most protests have been peaceful.

Having said that, the freedom of speech issue is important. The original reason for publishing the cartoons is sort of disturbing -the editor of the Danish paper states that he commissioned the cartoons in the first place was because he learnt about a Danish writer who couldn’t find anyone to illustrate his children’s book about the life of Mohammed (because of fears of violent reprisals from militant Muslims).

I definitely think that he could have found A MUCH better way to express his concern about this than commissioning the cartoons, but still…in light of the Theo Van Gogh stabbing in the Netherlands, the intimidation emanating from militant (note I said miltant) Muslims is worrisome.

I am also concerned about limiting what can be shown in a public forum, in attempts to be sensitive to religious sensibilities. I mean, wasn’t this the reasoning behind places in Utah not showing Brokeback Mountain – because its content might “offend” some Christian members of the community? And I find this: “The Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League have announced they intend to request a resolution from the United Nations that prohibits offending religions.” extremely troubling.

Lisa

Wrye said...

Let's keep an ironclad grip on the fact that the original publication did not spark any sort of confrontation at all, though.

Who'd have thunk that the next Satanic Verses would be a handfull of doodles?

Bear in mind that what Muslims in the Middle East eventually saw were not merely the original (for the most part innocuous) cartoons, but additional, truly hateful drawings (The Prophet as a pig, etc) that the original complainant had recieved/gathered from far right email in Europe, so there's a bait and switch that's gone on too. These are drawings which would never be published in any publication of note.

Lisa said...

That's a good point. The pig picture, though, I think was not something the complainent received, though, but in fact a picture of a contestant in a Pig Squealing contest. Anyways, much disinformation and manipulation and agendas on both sides (the European right and Muslim fundies). It's all very sad.

I guess Laura’s question was really about Muslims in Canada. I read that article in the Globe, too, and thought that it made a lot of sense. There is something to be said for the fact that there is an organized moderate Muslim voice in Canada. I think that there are two main orgs that represent Canadian Muslims, one much more conservative than the other. The Canadian Islamic Congress is much less liberal than the Muslim Canadian Congress (I believe). Not sure why there would have emerged an organized moderate voice in Canada, in particular, though.

Lisa

Wrye said...

Oh right, I'd heard something about that, too. I must have conflated two things. This whole thing is murky.

The question of censorship and restraint in Canada is an interesting one, too, we should come back to sometime. We have anti-hate speech statutes, to be sure.

James said...

My point, however, is that people have the right to protest, no matter how inane any of us find their cause.

Certainly! But sometimes protesting -- or the manner of protesting -- does you more harm than that against which you are protesting.

To be fair, it was worse than that. It wasn't "Muslims" depicted, it was Mohammed - who is never supposed to be depicted at all.

Nevertheless, it is as unreasonable to expect non-Moslems to live by those rules as to expect Moslems to obey the Pope.

Naturally I agree that the vehemence of these protests are ridiculous, but there's terrible prejudice on the newspaper's side, too.

Sure -- and I certainly don't have any respect for the idiots who came up with this whole idea in the first place. Of course, someone deliberately poured gasoline on the whole mess when they added cartoons that weren't part of the original set.

As people keep saying, you wouldn't see Jesus depicted this way in a modern newspaper.

Maybe not a newspaper, but you do elsewhere. Neither Serrano's Piss Christ nor Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary managed to incite any mass arson, in spite of the protests. More recently, South Park's "Virgin Mary" episode offended a lot of people without anything getting burned down or anyone getting shot.

These riots are, more than anything else, convincing the idiots who started the mess in Denmark (and those who agree with them worldwide) that they were right all along.

Lone Primate said...

Even without the violence, these protests are just so inane... Do they really believe that their prophet is so weak and fragile that he's threatened by (really lame) cartoons?

That isn't the issue. I don't think anyone thinks that. They conceive of themselves as a culture under threat. This should hardly be something difficult for a Canadian to understand and sympathize with, at least in the abstract. While I chaffe at the idea that we should have to self-censor, on the other hand, isn't that just another word for being polite and having some regard for the sensitivities of others? Some of the Western papers seem to have taken on the aspect of the jerk in school who, upon ferretting out someone's sore spot, spends the next couple of years making a point of joking loud and long about it at every chance. I don't think this is how the Western world is going to win friends or convince others of our good intentions. Violence, no... but those people are right to protest if they feel slighted, and clearly, they do. We can't tell them they don't.

Lone Primate said...

Nevertheless, it is as unreasonable to expect non-Moslems to live by those rules as to expect Moslems to obey the Pope.

Just because you don't feel yourself enjoined from doing something does not equate to a good reason to do it. What's accomplished by any non-Muslim depicting Mohammed, except to upset Muslims? Put another way, and assuming you're not Jewish, you're prefectly free to eat pork. But if you had an Orthodox Jewish friend by, would you feel obliged to serve pork just to remind him that you're not limited by rules he considers sacred and you consider foolish? To me, this is a case of the same sort of thing.

Canrane said...

Maybe not a newspaper, but you do elsewhere. Neither Serrano's Piss Christ nor Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary managed to incite any mass arson, in spite of the protests. More recently, South Park's "Virgin Mary" episode offended a lot of people without anything getting burned down or anyone getting shot.

I think that's a little unfair, James.

Offensive depictions outside of the mainstream, coming from one of your own, (in a country where you are the majority religion, no less) is hardly the same.

The "see, Christians don't get violent over silly pictures" attitude is what bugs me the most about this whole affair. Especially when it comes from people who seem perfectly fair and reasonable.

Why can't we condemn the violence without bringing other religions into the mix?

I'm not saying violence is acceptable or even an understandable response...but the situations are totally different - in terms of affluence of muslim countries, the number of fundamentalist crazies stirring the pot and the international irritants adding insult to injury.

Under similar circumstances, I'm quite sure people of any religion could be riled up enough to lash out violently.

If the western world could convey that they understood that it could be any religion, while they criticize the violence, I'm sure it would go over a lot better.

James said...

Just because you don't feel yourself enjoined from doing something does not equate to a good reason to do it.

Of course not. But it is also not a good reason for others to insist that you don't do it.

What's accomplished by any non-Muslim depicting Mohammed, except to upset Muslims?

In this case, nothing; in other cases (such as scholarship), possible something worthwhile.

Put another way, and assuming you're not Jewish, you're prefectly free to eat pork. But if you had an Orthodox Jewish friend by, would you feel obliged to serve pork just to remind him that you're not limited by rules he considers sacred and you consider foolish?

But did anyone feel obliged to produce these cartoons? In any case, should I be so crass as to do such a thing, the rational response is to tell me I'm a jerk and leave, not burn my house down and call for my execution.

Your example actually is actually very relevant to recent events -- a bunch of racist idiots in France recently started up a soup kitchen that only served pork-based foods, so as to exclude Moslems. It was a petty, nasty, and vile thing to do -- much like those cartoons -- but, again, the rational response does not involve arson and death threats.

To me, this is a case of the same sort of thing.

Sure. But riots riots and arson are only convincing the racists who created the cartoons that they were right all along.

Offensive depictions outside of the mainstream, coming from one of your own, (in a country where you are the majority religion, no less) is hardly the same.

Salman Rushdie comes to mind...

The "see, Christians don't get violent over silly pictures" attitude is what bugs me the most about this whole affair.

That wasn't my actual point, though. I was responding only to the claim that "you wouldn't see Jesus depicted this way in a modern newspaper". Both of the works mentioned above were printed in newspapers during the controversies.

Under similar circumstances, I'm quite sure people of any religion could be riled up enough to lash out violently.

Every religion in the world has its examples of stupid, violent behaviour -- even Buddhism. I'm certainly not making any claim that anyone's especially virtuous in this regard.

If the western world could convey that they understood that it could be any religion, while they criticize the violence, I'm sure it would go over a lot better.

I'm not sure that's true, though -- for political, not necessarily religious, reasons. It'd be very hard to start Shinto riots these days, in spite of that religion's contributions to the violence perpetrated by Japan in the first half of the 20th century.

Unfortunately, the fundamentalist crazies running Moslem theocracies find it useful to have an easily roused population on hand, and the fundamentalist crazies in Europe & the US find it useful to goad their opponents into furies. They each have political reasons for painting the other as evil. Unfortunately, these riots are playing right into this.

Wrye said...

Especially when it comes from people who seem perfectly fair and reasonable.

To echo Carl Sagan, something about this issue is not condusive to clear thinking.

L-girl said...

Great discussion, you guys. Some thoughts on what's here:

The question of censorship and restraint in Canada is an interesting one, too, we should come back to sometime. We have anti-hate speech statutes, to be sure.

I've been thinking about those laws a lot lately, since I find myself outside the party line (so to speak) on this issue. Thanks for the idea, Wrye - I'll post on it soon to get the ball rolling.

But sometimes protesting -- or the manner of protesting -- does you more harm than that against which you are protesting.

It truly does, but that's a question of strategy, and who you're trying to reach, and what you're trying to accomplish.

It's easy for us to look at the protests and say they're not accomplishing anything - or are making it worse. But the protestors might in fact feel they're being successful. The unstated goal might simply be to vent rage, and the incident is only a catalyst. It might be to show strength, to frighten the people viewed as the opponent. It might be to force a reaction, or an incident.

When I was a kid, my parents used to say that the Black Panthers and Malcolm X did more harm than good - making people afraid of black people, showing blacks in a negative light. But for African Americans themselves, those movements did a world of good, and were an extremely important counterbalance to the nonviolent protests.

I'm not equating the current Muslim protests with those earlier movements. I'm only saying that people observing comfortably from the sidelines in relative privilege cannot judge what is best an aggrieved people.

Neither Serrano's Piss Christ nor Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary managed to incite any mass arson, in spite of the protests.

But in that case, the people protesting were quite powerful. They had exhibits pulled from museums, funding cut from artists and institutions, hearings opened on the US National Endowment for the Arts, etc. etc. Rudy Giuiliani had a subway stop closed so people couldn't get to a museum.

The people protesting these cartoons don't have the power to do things like that. That's why their protests are amorphous howls of rage.

While I chaffe at the idea that we should have to self-censor, on the other hand, isn't that just another word for being polite and having some regard for the sensitivities of others?

I agree with this. We all self-censor. That's what it is to live in a pluralistic society.

Of course, the protestors should do some self-censoring too...

Some of the Western papers seem to have taken on the aspect of the jerk in school who, upon ferretting out someone's sore spot, spends the next couple of years making a point of joking loud and long about it at every chance.

Yes, that's a good analogy.

In any case, should I be so crass as to do such a thing, the rational response is to tell me I'm a jerk and leave, not burn my house down and call for my execution.

Yes, of course. And that's where the protestors lose all (or most) sympathy that they may ever have garnered, and reinforce all the horrible stereotypes about Muslims. It's very bad in that respect.

the fundamentalist crazies running Moslem theocracies find it useful to have an easily roused population on hand, and the fundamentalist crazies in Europe & the US find it useful to goad their opponents into furies.

This is very true. One of the points made by a Canadian Muslim leader (in the G&M article above) was that, b/c of Canada's immigration laws, Canadian Muslims tend to be educated professionals. Historically, it's always been easier to goad an underclass - one that feels beleaguered, under siege - into violence. They have less at stake, they're angry to begin with, and if they are fundamentalists, well, by definition they see the world in stark good/evil, black/white terms.

sharonapple said...

There are probably a number of underlying issues behind the protest, more than the cartoons themselves that's fueling them. The cartoons were a spark.

I'm not equating the current Muslim protests with those earlier movements. I'm only saying that people observing comfortably from the sidelines in relative privilege cannot judge what is best an aggrieved people.

I don't know... a group might feel good about taking their past wrongs out on a symbol, but they probably acheive nothing. What is needed is protests that can be arranged around permanent, real action, not the equivalent of a two-minute hate.

1984 is discussed a lot lately, but the whole concept of a two-minute hate needs to be noted more.

"[Goldstein] was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party's purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters; perhaps even -- so it was occasionally rumored-in some hiding place in Oceania itself." (Chapter 1. p.14)

As noted in 1984, you don't need to know much about Goldstein except that he exists and plots against you. He's a good scapegoat for everything that is wrong, and hating him makes you love your country more... and probably saves whomever is in charge from the real protests that they would probably get without him for their actions.

Lone Primate said...

Of course not. But it is also not a good reason for others to insist that you don't do it.

Well, what is the nature of taking offence, then? You might enjoy a poke in the eye, for example, but I don't. How is it infringing on your rights if I insist you don't poke me in MY eye? Feel free where your own is concerned; we're talking about mine. I'm the one who calls the shots where that's concerned, and who defines what is and isn't offensive. If you choose to disregard my feelings, you risk -- quite legitimately -- angering me. Gratuitous and mean-spirited depictions of Mohammed and Muslims in general are going to upset Muslims, and all the chiding about them needed to get a sense of humour don't amount to a hill of beans.

In any case, should I be so crass as to do such a thing, the rational response is to tell me I'm a jerk and leave, not burn my house down and call for my execution.

Okay... now imagine an entire culture doing that kind of thing, generation after generation. There's a limit to how much people are willing to put up with. The West and the Soviet Union spent 50 years building gigantic nuclear arsenals to maintain a level of respect for their relative ideologies. I'm not big on how the Muslim world's dealing with this, but I can understand it. And I can't tell them they're wrong to be mad, wrong to be offended, wrong to demand respect for what they esteem. They're tired of the way we've been treating them. Look around the world... little wonder! We're outraged because they call for the blood of the cartoonists -- while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered in the last three years by invading Western armies! We treat them like cattle and then tell them they're overreacting. Good God! The hypocrisy is staggering. We treat them like cattle and then tell them they're overreacting.

As noted in 1984, you don't need to know much about Goldstein except that he exists and plots against you.

This is a stunning epiphany. "Terrorists" are the Goldstein of the modern age. And the people of Oceania seem to have learned nothing from the book.

L-girl said...

This is a stunning epiphany. "Terrorists" are the Goldstein of the modern age. And the people of Oceania seem to have learned nothing from the book.

I don't think that's what sharonapple meant (although I'm not sure), but I agree with your interpretation. I like to see the old anti-communism propaganda, substitute the word "terrorism" and see how perfectly it fits. Gotta have an Enemy to keep people in line.

L-girl said...

I'm not big on how the Muslim world's dealing with this, but I can understand it. And I can't tell them they're wrong to be mad, wrong to be offended, wrong to demand respect for what they esteem.

I've often said this about African American rage in the US. People are supposed to "get over" racism. Easy for white people to say.

sharonapple said...

I don't think that's what sharonapple meant (although I'm not sure), but I agree with your interpretation.

It cuts both ways well, though, doesn't it. Anger's understandable. Anger is based on something and it can be overcome, but hate seems all about destroying what the object that you hate.

I like to see the old anti-communism propaganda, substitute the word "terrorism" and see how perfectly it fits. Gotta have an Enemy to keep people in line.

Yeah, it's funny how social liberties have been eroded simply by using bin Laden as the boogey man. Here's an interesting article about how people could be socially progressive, but because of what happened on 9/11, voted for Bush.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/uselection2004/vegas.html