<< OTHER WAYS NOT MENTIONED ~ MAIN ~ OPEN THREAD #4 >>
BORDERS BUK-BUK-BUK-BUK-BUK BOOKS
Borders Books chickens out:
Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.
Times change. In 2001, Borders hosted events to highlight the tragedy of banned books:
Borders Books, Music, and Cafe, 4030 Commonwealth Ave., hosted a reading in honor of banned books week. This was the first in a series of three readings in the Eau Claire area to increase awareness about banned books. Nine area residents read excerpts from their favorite banned books.
One of the readers, English lecturer Elizabeth Preston, said at the time: “Where is the line between banning a book and banning a group of people from reading? Who is in charge of drawing that line?” Beats me. Ask Borders.
In their submission to Islam, Border’s next concession will be forcing women employees to wear burkas, then Border’s will fire all women employees, then Borders will ban women from shopping at Borders and finally Borders will use their coffee shop area to publicly flog women who have learned how to read.
Posted by perfectsense on 2006 03 30 at 08:03 AM • permalinkI sent those nice folk at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) a nice e-mail saying “Hello”, spelled “Chickenshit cowards”. It was such a nice in-store experience.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 03 30 at 08:07 AM • permalinkPerhaps we should all walk into our nearest Borders and ask for a copy of the Free Inquiry magazine.
Consumer power may just force Borders to stock it!
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 03 30 at 08:29 AM • permalinkFree speech is a cornerstone of Western civilization, and must be protected at all costs.
Unless those that disagree with your “free speech” want to cut your head off.
Then it is “disrespectful”.
Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 2006 03 30 at 08:55 AM • permalinkToday’s ABC grandly titled Media Report wants to censor Tim’s cherished Bulletin -for causing “anger,hurt and confusion to the Port Arthur community.”
They referred to the cover story about the tenth anniversary of Martin Bryant’s dreadful mass murders in Tasmania.
Geraldo Dentista waxed endlessly on the “insensitivity” displayed by the magazine. The current ferry captain at Port Arthur spoke movingly of the effect the tragedy had on him and others from the area.
The person from the Bulletin agreed that it could cause sadness but said many other locals wanted to discover Bryant’s motive for the crimes.
Interestingly,after roundly condemning the magazine for the story,Geraldo announced that next week we would be treated to ANOTHER story about the massacre (presumably not causing the aforementioned anger,hurt and confusion) from Radio Nat’s Media Report. He mentioned that Red Kezza from 7.30 Report ,said his colleague’s sister had been a victim.Presumably the story concerns something to do with that.Never have I forgotten the 7.30 Report dwhich showed us breaking news of the arrest that very day of a vicious serial killer and his defacto-and partner in kidnapping,torturing ,raping,filming and murdering young girls.Some were buried
alive.As the cops lead the couple away they smiled and waved at the cameras.
Imagine then how the parents and families felt when the ABC presenter introduced a SOCIAL WORKER to the programme who blithely announced about the murderers “I really think that we can REHABILITATE THEM.”
Now THATS WHAT I CALL CAUSING ANGER,HURT AND CONFUSION.Walk into Borders. Fill your shopping trolley to the brim with all it can hold. Take it up to the checkout, and have ‘em total it, say $3452.13. At the last moment, say “Oh, I forgot - I need a copy of this month’s Free Inquiry. Where would I find it, please?”. When the clerk explains the situation, get up on your high horse. “Well, in that case I don’t care to do business with you”, and storm out.
That’ll larn ‘em.
Posted by Thon Brocket on 2006 03 30 at 09:15 AM • permalinkIt’s much easier being brave & courageous against people who don’t slit your throat. Even so, I remeber ABC shops stocked “The Satanic Verses” in the early 1990’s. Mind you, that was before September 11 2001, when leftists suddenly realised that violently racist, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic mass murderers of unarmed civilians were actually on their side.
Posted by Jim Geones on 2006 03 30 at 10:00 AM • permalinkCurious that Border’s (per online search results of Border’s Catalog) stocks Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, the Miraculous Journey of Mahomet, and Thomas Arnold’s Painting in Islam, both of which (according to the Zombie image archive) includes an image of Muhammad. As a proviso, these books could be listed as a result of an Amazon partnership. Time to take a trip over the local Borders (Boston) to see whether these (and similar) books have shelf space.
Posted by pastrami44 on 2006 03 30 at 10:08 AM • permalinkI sent Borders the following:
If you ban the Danish cartoon issue of this magazine, you are not a bookstore, you are a brothel, with no concern other than making the next buck.
Funny, I remember how you insisted Borders was committed to free speech back before the 2004 election, when your employees were boasting on line about hiding or destroying books by conservative authors.
Where is that commitment now, or was that just another lie?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 30 at 10:33 AM • permalink#7 Best part of 7.30 tonite was Red Kezza’s guest chirruping delightedly about the advances being proposed for Mental Health care (by the Feds under John Howard).
All innocent and unaware of the storm clouds gathering on Kezza’s fevered brow,as Kerry’s better self heroically struggled to find some crumb of compassion for the afflicted and for their newly positive outcomes and better treatment.Alas, the
compassionate urges were strangled at birth and Kezza discovered he didn’t have a better self after all.
He’s plumbed the depths where even good news for mental health sufferers is political business and if it does not show his side (the Left) in a favourable light then it’s not good news.
By the way is doing a 12 months gone by, memorial segment on the Sea King helicopter crash not going to cause hurt,pain and confusion? Just asking is all.I just an e-mail to Borders, similar to #10.
We’ll see just how meaningful a reply I get.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 03 30 at 10:48 AM • permalinkThose who’ve complained most about ‘oppression’ and ‘stifling of dissent’ are often the first to knuckle under or participate willingly.
We’re starting to find out that the various shrill, strident champions of various ‘rights’ are little more than hothouse flowers when the time comes to defend them, or to even follow through on them when it means extending rights to those with whom they disagree.
Their ‘commitment’ to rights is limited to snapping wet towels at benign authority figures in the West and conjuring up ever more obtuse grievances with which to browbeat the rest of us.
Waldenbooks in Greenwich VIllage once cancelled a reading of a Patti Smith non-hagiography because they didn’t want to upset Patti. I haven’t the heart to check whether this sensitivity was applied to Molly Ivins’ Shrub.
Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 03 30 at 11:00 AM • permalink#17 SSG Medic, I bet if the Pope slit a couple of “heretic” throats, and Catholics worldwide took to the streets burning the local Asia marts, screaming “Death to Brown!”, and demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Palestinian Invaders. They’d pull it like they were sneezing a ferret. Freedom of speech ends at the threat of death, evidently.
Here was my Email:
Rather a shame that Borders has decided to knuckle under to pressure and not carry the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine. I guess you never want to offend Islam under any circumstances.
Then I suppose you’ll be pulling the various books that offend us Christians?
I used to like shopping in the excellent Borders at the World Trade Center in Manhattan. Gee, I wonder what ever became of it?
Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 30 at 11:12 AM • permalinkWhat’s the difference between a killer rooster and a chicken?
The chicken works for Borders.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 03 30 at 11:30 AM • permalinkThe “chickens out” link quotes as some sort of justification, “Islamic tradition bars depiction of Muhammad to prevent idol worship, which is strictly prohibited”.
Well blossoms, strictly prohibited by who? You say it’s a tradition for Crissake. I can’t recall any such legal restriction in Australia. Or are someone elses traditional restrictions being foistered upon us? If so, why? And under whose authority? I really don’t give a toss who is depicted, anywhere, anyhow or at anytime - I have no intention of worshipping that depiction as an idol. If someone else does, that’s their problem not mine.
Get a spline Borders. Sorry, spine.
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 03 30 at 12:21 PM • permalinkI recall that when Rushdie first received his death threats from the mullahs, there were big demonstrations by literary types, some of whom held up signs saying, “I am Rushdie” (probably a melodramatic take-off on that scene toward the end of the movie, “Spartacus”, when the slave leader’s comrades arose by the score to declare “I am Spartacus!” to the victorious Romans). No real danger to the protestors was perceived at the time. I guess now that the risk factor is a lot higher, the free speech folks are playing it a little closer to the vest (“Pssst! He’s Spartacus!”)
Paco nails it again (so to speak—thinking of the end of that movie, I recall that Sparty and Friends wound up as human billboards along the Appian Way).
Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 30 at 01:34 PM • permalinkMy list of “noseeums” has become so long and unwieldy that I’ve decided to abandon it in favor of a list of businesses I will patronize, actors whose films I will see, musicians whose music I will buy, and so forth. Much easier this way. I will, however, stop by my local Borders next week, ask for a copy of Free Inquiry (which I admit until now I’d not heard of) and go from there.
I must say, though, that standing shoulder to shoulder with an outfit called Council for Secular Humanism is more than a bit odd for me. I just finished reading through the Free Inquiry articles available online and now I have a headache.
Enlightened Solutions for Global Challenges:
What holds for societies also holds, mutatis mutandis, for the community of nations. Differences among them are inevitable, but they should not furnish an excuse for the strong nations to dominate the weak ones. On the contrary, it is in the interest of all that the less-developed nations be helped to correct their most glaring deficiencies. The most sensational success of international cooperation is the European Union, which was constructed through an equalization mechanism: the rich partners subsidized the poor ones until they all could cooperate and compete with one another on roughly the same footing. What began as a device to prevent further European wars has become an unrivaled success story in all respects-economic, political, and cultural.
I am a meteorologist and an atheist. I am also a grateful beneficiary of science and all its trappings. Thank you, science, for a cured kidney infection. Thank you, science, for my straight, white teeth that have undoubtedly advanced my career in television. Thank you, science, for extending the lives of beloved pets, for computers, for air conditioning, for SPF-15 moisturizer, and for waterproof mascara. Thank you, science, for the many forms of birth control that have freed women from the tyranny of our own bodies, the tyranny once attributed either to a brutish, male god or to a fickle and domineering mother-goddess. Thank you, science, for the very freedom we have to study science in the first place.
Hurrah for Freedom of Inquiry: Vital Issues for Secular Humanists:
We are confronted today by the continued challenge of religious fundamentalism. The explosive growth of Islamic fundamentalism in the last half of the twentieth century has ignited conflagrations worldwide, as have the fearful responses to it. First and foremost among our concerns, of course, is the brutal war of attrition in Iraq and the continuing toll it exacts both on American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. American forces have suffered some 2,100 dead, 15,500 wounded (many seriously), and tens of thousands more who suffer possible long-range psychological impairment-this according to Representative John Murtha (D-Pa.), who recommends the immediate withdrawal and redeployment of American forces in the Middle East. Recently, all three factions in Iraq-the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds-have asked U.S. military forces to leave. The mounting death toll among innocent Iraqi civilians is rarely discussed in the United States. although President George W. Bush recently admitted to an estimate of thirty thousand casualties, we think that the number is probably higher. Many people hope that the new Iraqi constitution will enable democratic institutions to develop, permit Iraqi forces to police their own nation, and allow American troops to come home. Unfortunately, insurgent attacks, far from abating, have increased, and suicide bombers continue to proliferate. We hope that democracy can be realized in the Middle East one day-and we hope that this is not simply a pious hope.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 30 at 02:07 PM • permalinkAnyone US know if Borders carries the New York Times or the International Herald Tribune and if so whether they pulled the edition carrying the Bush Shiva caricature/cartoon. Via Sandmonkey,
http://www.ivarta.com/cause/iv002_bush_shiva.aspx
Has an email link. While don’t agree with the idea that cartoons should be pulled the Hindus are entitled to demand the same from the press as are the Muslims. As they say
“We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. We hope you understand that the freedom of expression is not an absolute; it is limited by the requirement of not causing offence or inciting racial or religious hatred. This cartoon is indeed offensive to the belief of Hindus and inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable. Therefore we are asking for an unconditional apology from your newspaper for this cartoon”
A very foolish decision by the western press to roll over to the imans. They must surely (these 2 papers) apologise for their hypocrisy. But then Islamists don’t like Hindus either so I guess it is OK to stick it up them, probably earn them brownie points.
“The most sensational success of international cooperation is the European Union”
WTF??!?!?!?
Oh, well. It’s the principle.
Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 30 at 03:06 PM • permalinkI don’t believe that Borders and Barnes and Noble are banning this magazine out of fear. The average leftie that works for these bookstores subscribes to (no pun intended) what I call “Chomsky-lite.” That is, they believe that the War on Terror is just a façade for US imperialism. That all Islamic terror is just a response to the cruelties of US policies and that there is NO real, independent Islamism other than what the US has created by its own misdeeds. Unfortunately, I know several certifiable moonbats and have suffered greatly listening to their incessant inanities. I had one of them tell me—actually insist—that Wahhabism was a Saudi response to US oil companies “raping” Saudi Arabia of its oil resources. When I countered that Wahhabism has its origins in the 1700s well before the oil economy I got another version of Dan Rather’s “even if the documents are false, the story is still true” bit. I would not be surprised if most leftists suspect that the cartoon controversy is a US imperialist plot to defame Islam in order justify its “War for Oil.” It’s in this vein that the ban is being made: that they believe that displaying the magazine will some how aid the US and insult, essentially, innocent Muslims. These people do not live on the planet Earth, as we know it. They are so out there that I doubt that even a nuclear bomb going off in downtown Manhattan will dent their lunacy.
Posted by Mark Razak on 2006 03 30 at 03:09 PM • permalinkYou don’t seem to understand that private companies do not ban books, only governments do. Private companies choose whether or not to provide a good or service to consumers based on the economic considerations of doing so or not doing so. You don’t like it? Start your own business.
Fools.
Posted by libertarialoon on 2006 03 30 at 03:49 PM • permalinkOf course it’s amusing that they banned something called “Free Inquiry”. Pithy really.
Borders should put a sign in the window: “Sorry, No Free Inquiry”. And what about the protest placards? “Death To Free Inquiry”, “We Don’t Support Free Inquiry”, “Free Inquiry Has Gone Too Far”.
May I suggest a design for the protest puppets?
Posted by Gun Crazy (dir. Joseph H. Lewis) on 2006 03 30 at 03:51 PM • permalinkSince the original post didn’t mention Barnes and Noble, I not only sent a strongly worded email to Borders and Waldenbooks but sent the following to B&N:
—-
I have just heard that your competitors Borders and Waldenbooks have caved to either actual or anticipated pressure, and are refusing to stock the April/May edition of Free Inquiry magazine. That edition includes the cartoons about the prophet Muhammad which have caused such uproar among those who wish their religious values to be treated as international mandates.
A society dedicated to freedom of speech and of the press should be able to rely on its bookstores to uphold those values. I can’t say it better than Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds: “If you don’t like ideas, don’t bother arguing with them. Just threaten to kill people. They’ll back down. Or at least their booksellers, universities, and governments will. How long before other groups take this lesson to heart?”
If you usually carry Free Inquiry magazine—or even if you don’t—I urge you to stock this magazine, not only so your customers can see for themselves what the controversy is about, but so that they and others will see that one bookstore chain is not propelling itself down the slippery slope of propitiation.
Sincerely,
Karen A. WylePosted by Karen A. Wyle on 2006 03 30 at 04:19 PM • permalinkHey # 37, one does not need to start a business to show that the actions of a certain business are disagreeable. The usual techniques for showing displeasure are (1)expressing displeasure (2)orgainizing a boycott of the bastards (3) if one doesn’t have time to organize, just purchasing your stuff from a competitor. There are other simple rules that one can follow without having to go to the trouble of starting a new business. Just ask any seven year old in the vicinity what they are. One more bit of news for you, it is not advisable, after writing an idiotic missive, to end by calling other people ‘fools”. It only emphasizes your stupidity.
OOPS, one other thing, your commentPrivate companies choose whether or not to provide a good or service to consumers based on the economic considerations of doing so or not doing so. Does that apply to the New York Times, Boston Globe, etc that refused to publish the cartoons? Please google and find the US newspaper that admitted that it refused to publish because of fear, not out of economic reasons. And what were they afraid of? The Unitarians?From LGF:
I work for Borders Books and after reading the article you posted on Wed. 3/29 about our company not carrying the magazine due to it showing the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy, I thought I should write with another tidbit of information I learned about my company the other week.
I was shifting rows of books in our religion section and it happened to be that all of our Koran books (a section on its own) ended up on the bottom shelf. The next day I was informed by my General Manager that it is Borders policy as a whole (not my particular store) that due to complaints in the past from Muslim customers, we are not allowed to put our copies of the Koran on any shelf other than the top.
When I heard of this I became so infuriated that the company I work for (and I do love working for it) has caved in to Islamic pressure and is still continuing to do so. I love my job and my company but it does deeply disturb me to see what is happening to it.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 30 at 04:38 PM • permalink40
Of course you can state you disagree with their decision and “vote with your wallet”. But to point to the fact that Borders hosted an event stating their opposition to book banning demonstrates their hypocrisy in this case is a non sequiter. This is not banning; it’s a business decision based on economic considerations. Governments ban book by use of force. Private companies choose not to stock books because it affects their bottom lines.
Posted by libertarialoon on 2006 03 30 at 04:38 PM • permalink40
On you other point, fear is certainly an economic consideration. Apparently these media outlets decided the econonics gains of publishing the cartoons were outweighed by the potential losses due to threat of destruction of private property or physical violence. Whether that’s right or wrong is up to you to decide. It’s still not banning because it’s a decision made by a private entity, not the state.
Posted by libertarialoon on 2006 03 30 at 04:46 PM • permalink44
The argument has nothing to do with semantics. It has to do with the difference between private organizations based upon free association and public organizations based upon force and violence. Sorry you cannot see the distinction. It’s fundamental to the discussion.
Posted by libertarialoon on 2006 03 30 at 04:51 PM • permalinkI mean overall Liberatrialoon i don’t disagree that true censorship is a government action using the force available to it and that private businesses can stock what they want.
But it strikes me as pretty hypocritical for a book store professing to operate on free speech lines to not defend it where it may directly affect them . It is a business basically feeling they have to bow down because of threats by fundamentalists.
It just makes any statement from them in the past of the necessity to defend free speech and the ones they’ll put out in the future very hollow.
Loon.
You have missed the point to a certain extent also.
You have focused on the strict legal definition. There is also a greater philosophical concept dealing with the free flow of ideas which supersedes the strict definition of banning.
That is also at play here, and the thrust of the statements given at that book reading clearly indicates that that is the case.
My reference to semantics was only your objection to the use of the word “ban”. Ban can have a wide use. People can be banned from pubs (private businesses). I can ban smoking in my house etc
In this case the book store has banned that issue from its stores, Doesn’t mean censorship. I do agree its not censorship. Just as a library not stocking a certain book isn’t censorship.
overall point “ban” does not equal “censorship” .
Off to work now
As much as I would admire a company and employees who would stand up to Islamists, I think it’s a bit strong to criticize them when our own governments refuse to protect those who have already done so (for example, the Danish cartoonists are still in hiding while those who place bounties on their heads are out in public surrounded by admiring mobs). I have more at this post: Borders Indictment
Posted by Amit Ghate on 2006 03 30 at 05:25 PM • permalinkAlthough a “ban” is typically by official (governmental) decree, just about anyone can ban, and has banned, just about anything. The Borders/Waldenbooks “business decision” certainly must concern the American Library Association:
Banned Books Week: Celebrating the Freedom to Read is observed during the last week of September each year. Observed since 1982, the annual event reminds Americans not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted.
Banned Books Week (BBW) celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.
Among the sponsors of Banned Book Week are the American Booksellers Association and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
While at the other end of the spectrum, a non-governmental organization, the Al Azhar Islamic Research Council which reviews books sent to it by security services and recommends about 10 to 15 books be banned every year on the grounds that they are unIslamic or insulting to the religion, has blacklisted “The Responsibility for the Failure of the Islamic State,” [in which] author Gamal al-Banna suggests ways for Muslim minorities in Europe and elsewhere to integrate into non-Islamic societies.
Al Azhar’s ban recommendations are not always implemented by governments, but booksellers say that these days they prefer to remove books regardless to avoid any trouble.
“We can’t risk selling [Banna’s book] now, because we can get into trouble,” says an employee at a major downtown Cairo bookstore. “This has happened before and the [owner], got into trouble.”
Book banning in Egypt targets a Muslim moderate
Borders certainly has the right to make the business decisions of its choice, but they deserve a vociferous call on this particular choice.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 03 30 at 05:33 PM • permalink#30, after reading those article extracts, I’m starting to wonder if there’s a whiff of viral marketing attached to this ‘controversy’. Has anyone gone into a Borders and asked to buy a copy of the mag in question? Just asking.
Maybe Borders were unsure of banning the mag over MoToons, and that bit about the European Union totally sealed the deal?
I worked part-time in a bookstore last year that regularly banned books and magazines…The books and magazines that didn’t sell a single copy because they were shit.
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 03 30 at 05:58 PM • permalink#53: What Kyda said. Border’s choice is most emphatically an instance of self-censorship; the company is acceding to the de jure censorship imposed by various mullahs - who fulfill the role of legal censors in their own countries - by refusing to carry the magazine. Whether the motive is merely economic or not is irrelevant. The decision is clearly an act of hypocrisy: are they only against book-banning when there is no risk to themselves? How absurd to see bookstores and library associations beating up, say, on some rural school district for banning Huck Finn, but cowering before the fanaticism of a militant religion that would keep millions in ignorance and fear - and not only in their own countries, mind you, but through threats of violence, throughout the world. Does Borders have the right to do this? Absolutely. do they still have the right to claim the moral high ground with respect to freedom of speech? Absolutely not.
Borders’ reason for not selling this magazine is most certainly total bullshit. I’ve never seen anyone pick up Free Inquiry in their stores besides old cranks with gray pony tails and faded Grateful Dead t-shirts. This is just their way of drawing attention to themselves when they are feeling the punch from online services like Amazon.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 03 30 at 07:16 PM • permalinkTht’s exactly right Andrea. Borders didn’t print or publish the magazine. What is the realistic probability that they would be targeted by outraged American Islamists? Sweet FA I reckon. Were any Danish newsagents targeted for selling the original newspapers? (I don’t know so I’m asking).
Will they ban cook books featuring recipes for meat dishes if PETA start baring bottoms at their front door?
It’s a long quote so I have to edit it heavily (hopefully without destroyin it) but I got an email from Western Standard yesterday. It’s a Canadian magazine that Mark Steyn writes for. I tried to donate but their web page won’t take Australian addresses.
“
Dear Western Standard reader,Our magazine has been sued for publishing the Danish cartoons, and I need your help to fight back!
As you know, the Western Standard was the only mainstream media organ in Canada to publish the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
...
Advertisers stood with us. ..In fact, according to a COMPAS poll last month, fully 70% of Canada’s working journalists supported our decision to publish the cartoons.
But not Syed Soharwardy, a radical Calgary Muslim imam.
He asked the police to arrest me for publishing the cartoons. They calmly explained to him that’s not what police in Canada do.
So then he went to a far less liberal institution than the police: the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Unlike the Calgary Police Service, they didn’t have the common sense to show him the door.
Earlier this month, I received a copy of Soharwardy’s rambling, hand-scrawled complaint. ...the bulk of his complaint is that we dared to try to justify it - that we dared to disagree with him.
.. In Soharwardy’s view, not only should the Canadian media be banned from publishing the cartoons, but we should be banned from defending our right to publish them. ...
Soharwardy’s complaint goes further than just the cartoons. It refers to news articles we published about Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. By including those other articles, he shows his real agenda: censoring any criticism of Muslim extremists.Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about Soharwardy’s complaint is that he claims our cartoons caused him to receive hate mail. Indeed, his complaint includes copies of a few e-mails from strangers to him. Some of those e-mails even go so far as to call him “humourless” and tell him to “lighten up”. ...
Soharwardy’s complaint should have been thrown out immediately by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, just like the police did. But it wasn’t. Which is why I’m writing to you today.According to our lawyers, we will win this case. It’s an infantile complaint, without basis in facts or law. Frankly, it’s an embarrassment to the government of Alberta that their tribunal is open to abuse like this.
Our lawyers tell us we’re going to win. But not before we have to spend hundreds of hours and up to $75,000 fighting this thing, at our own expense. Soharwardy doesn’t have to spend a dime - now that his complaint has been filed, Alberta tax dollars will pay for the prosecution of his complaint. We have to pay for this on our own.
....
We will file our legal response to Soharwardy’s shakedown this week. And we will fight this battle to the end - not just for our own sake, but to defend freedom of the press for all Canadians.Do you believe that’s important? If so, I’d ask you to help us defray our costs. We’re accepting donations through our website. It’s fast, easy and secure. Just click on http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom
....
Yours gratefully,Ezra Levant
PublisherI just got up from my comfy chair and walked over to the Borders religion section, and the Koran (in translation) was mid-shelf. So maybe not everyone got the memo.
Posted by Ernst Blofeld on 2006 03 31 at 01:32 AM • permalinkAndrea,
Not so sure about the Borders war on the Amazon, since it appears (when you plug in Borders.com) that they’ve hired Amazon to do their online sales.
Posted by Monroe Doctrine on 2006 03 31 at 03:48 PM • permalink#56 Andrea: a commenter to the BidinottoBlog’s post of an protest letter to Borders linked to a Borders Group press release from earlier this year: it notes that Borders has signed an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to open a lot of Borders franchises there and in other Arabian Gulf countries.
Which might explain a lot. See http://www.bgimediacenter.com/cgi-bin/browse.pl?action=news&path=5&item=595.
Perhaps we should all walk into our nearest Borders and ask for a copy of the Free Inquiry magazine.
Consumer power may just force Borders to stock it!
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 03 30 at 08:29 AM • permalinkBy the same token since absolutely none of us read Free Inquiry Magazine or care what it does and doesn’t contain we already don’t buy it. Makes a good case for them not stocking it at all. Or anybody caring about this for that matter.
Turns out Borders is well down the path of going belly up and can’t really afford to piss too many people off. This action of theirs has spread around the blogosphere and provoked plenty of disgust. I suspect that a blogger buys considerably more books than your average man on the street who wouldn’t be aware of this issue. Alienate a large book-buying demographic when you’re financially struggling - Borders’s genius management really thought this one through.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 04 01 at 12:37 AM • permalinkAndrea: a commenter to the BidinottoBlog’s post of an protest letter to Borders linked to a Borders Group press release from earlier this year: it notes that Borders has signed an agreement with the United Arab Emirates to open a lot of Borders franchises there and in other Arabian Gulf countries.
So? Like a magazine called “Free Inquiry” will ever be sold anywhere in that area. Why don’t they also remove all those cookbooks with recipes made with pork and all R-rated dvds? Those are also offensive to Muslims. I maintain this was a clumsy, attention-grabbing blunder by what used to be one of my favorite bookstores.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 04 01 at 12:48 AM • permalinkTank, if the whole issue was simply low sales of a magazine, they would have simply taken it off the racks without mentioning it, the way they do anything else that doesn’t sell. And we will care about what we want to care about, thanks so much. I can’t believe you joined this site today just to tell us how much you don’t care about something. Yawn.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 04 01 at 12:51 AM • permalinkMaybe they should have just wrapped the mag in a fake cover bearing the title ‘The Protocols Of Zion’. Then those most likely to pick up that title would have gotten a hell of a surprise when they flicked through the pages.
Just a thought…
Posted by LeftieLatteLover on 2006 04 01 at 08:28 AM • permalink#71—Well, no. I wasn’t arguing that it did. Catching Borders out apparently hiding a strong commercial motive behind a smokescreen of sententious piffle about “the safety of our employees” doesn’t exactly show them up in any kind of admirable light; I brought it up only because post 56 raised the issue of why Borders might have taken this tack, and at this time. Did it really sound like a plea of extenuating circumstances? Because I sure didn’t mean it that way.
#54 LLL,
I went into my local Borders today, April 3. Free Inquiry is a magazine they normally stock. I asked for it, and they had no copies on hand. Two staff members looked for them. “We must be sold out,” one said. Right, at the beginning of the two month period of the issue. I sent an email to Borders home pointing out that I had been buying many books and CDs at Borders recently, and that they had until the end of May to stock the issue in the local store so I could buy it. If they did not, I said I intended never to shop with them again.libertarialoon,
You are neglectinbg to observe, it seems, that there are threats of violence emanating form a nongovernmental organization to effect the banning of this magazine. At any rate Borders thinks (or says it thinks) that there might be violence if they stock it. Indeed, the NGO (militant Muslim fanatics) did not actually have to say anything, for Borders preemptively restricted its own normal economic activities in order to submit to anticipated threats of violence. Can you say “dhimmitude” boys and girls? I knew you could. Libertoids take note: it is not just The State that can restrict your freedom by use of coercion. In this case The State is actually your first line recourse against such coercion restricting your freedom, if you can get it to pay attention. Your alternatives to The State taking action to prevent or punish such coercion are 1) self help, which ultimately leads to vendettas and lawless violence, and 2) submission, which leads to your loss of freedom. Choose.The libertarian/Objectivist penchant for interpreting everything in terms of economics has seldom shown its inadequacy as a means of analysis of fundamentally nonecoonomic situations more fully than here.
#73 stats,
Looks that way. Confronted by violence Tod Beamer’s response was “Let’s roll.” Borders’ response was “Let’s submit.” Oh for a Red State bookstore.Posted by Michael Lonie on 2006 04 03 at 08:06 PM • permalinkGot a response from Borders regarding my inquiry about this fiasco. It pretty much echoed the statement by senior management. At least they are sticking to their decision, no matter how silly or submissive…..
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 04 04 at 01:20 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
So very brave.