Posted on 01/27/2013 1:02:51 PM PST by Nachum
The Sunday Times marked Holocaust Memorial Day in a less-than-traditional manner, running a virulently anti-Israel cartoon depicting a big-nosed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu paving a wall with the blood and limbs of writhing Palestinians.
The cartoon included a caption beneath the image entitled "Israeli elections- will cementing peace continue?" Drawn by Gerald Scarfe, the cartoon appeared in the national paper on Sunday.
“This cartoon would be offensive at any time of the year, but to publish it on International Holocaust Remembrance Day is sickening and expresses a deeply troubling mindset,” said European Jewish Congress President Dr. Moshe Kantor. “This insensitivity demands an immediate apology from both the cartoonist and the paper’s editors.”
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
Translation: We're owned by the Muslims now
Lets see Scarfe work up enough balls to draw a cartoon of Mohammed.
No doubt it would get at least a chuckle out of Julian Streicher ...
I’m not the least bit surprised. Anti-Semitism is actually quite chic and trendy these days, and we have Israeli Apartheid Week to thank for that more than anything else.
I’ve actually been working on a new piece of shock-poetry that should be ready just in time for Israeli Apartheid Week this year, and it is in a direct response to a few of the things I heard folks, who hang out at those demonstrations saying over the last two or three years, such as: Hamas and Hezbollah should be given nuclear weapons, because then the Jews would finally be forced to deal with them as equals, and the walls would come down. (eyeroll)
The piece is called “Israeli Apartheid Kristallnacht”, and when it’s done, I’ll share it with anyone who is interested.
“typically robust”.......hmmmmm.
Wonder if Hitler’s propagandists ever used that kind of defense in their cartoon portrayals of the Jewish people.
After a brief, and very atypical, hiatus for a few decades following World War II and the excesses of Nazi Germany, anti-semitism is once again tres chic.
The United States, of course - and most of the West - is now pwned by the Moslems and their apologists.
“If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war.
If Israel were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel” - Benjamin Netanyahu
The Israelis are missing a bet, here. Britain has insane libel laws, in which the truth is no defense, basically that if someone is offended, they can sue for libel and win.
Therefore, the Israeli government, on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu, should sue the Times for an enormous sum of money. A whopper of a lawsuit on behalf of all surviving victims of the Holocaust.
“Britain has insane libel laws, in which the truth is no defense, basically that if someone is offended, they can sue for libel and win.”
Wrong! The truth is a defense against libel. The burden of proof is on the defense. If the defendant can prove that his statements were true, then there is no libel. (There’s also the “Fair Comment” defense, but that’s another subject.)
If you think about it, the burden of proof should rest on the media outlet making the comments. Why should media outlets be able to destroy anyone’s reputation, without being able to substantiate the charges? Would you like to be the subject of a MSM character-assassination campaign?
That’s nothing new in UK publications. A few years ago, one of them published a Blood Libel Canard cartoon.
Not in the case of Britain, though there is a bill working its way through parliament to that effect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/opinion/britains-half-hearted-bid-to-reform-libel-law.html
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html
That column is rather self-serving — the writer is biased because of his involvement in a libel suit. He doesn’t outright deny that truth is a defense — because it is. However, the onus is reversed from what it is in the U.S. and most other countries. In Britain, the (alleged) defamer has to prove that his comments were true. In the US, Canada, etc. the (alleged) defamed party has to prove that the statements were not true (and that he suffered actual damages). There’s a lot more to it; but, the difference between Britain and other countries essentially comes down to the question of who has the burden of proof.
While I strongly support free speech, and do not want to see it stiffed — I also believe that everyone is “innocent until proven guilty”, and that we all have a right to protect our personal reputations. If a reporter (author) etc. does not have any proof of (whatever), they shouldn’t be allowed to just sling mud without any consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.