Well, Heather Reisman, the CEO of Canada’s nigh monopolistic corporate bookstore chain is marking up our country with her censor’s marker again.
You might remember that in the past she’s banned such things as Mein Kampf (although, amusingly, not the “sequel“), books by famous whack-job David Icke, and gun magazines. None of them things I have any interest in reading, but still not things I like to see her “banning” when her business is a de facto monopoly among the people who don’t shop online.
However, this time she’s actually banning something I want to buy:
Canada’s largest retail bookseller has removed all copies of the June issue of Harper’s Magazine from its 260 stores, claiming an article by New York cartoonist Art Spiegelman could foment protests similar to those that occurred this year in reaction to the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
Indigo Books and Music took the action this week when its executives noticed that the 10-page Harper’s article, titled Drawing Blood, reproduced all 12 cartoons first published last September by Jyllands-Posten (The Morning Newspaper).
The article also contains five cartoons, including one by Mr. Spiegelman and two by Israelis, “inspired” by an Iranian newspaper’s call in February for an international Holocaust cartoon contest “to test the limits of Western tolerance of free speech.”
There is also CBC coverage.
I think I might take a page from the Canadian Journalist blog’s book and use Chapters’ list of executives to write some letters.
It’s no secret that I am disgusted by many things that the Harper government has done, most particularly the way they are following the Bush-Cheney-Rove playbook on things like making the media into puppets (also), hiding the costs of war (also), using fear to drive a putrid political agenda, using the “activist judge” tag whenever they dislike results, etc.
Well, they’ve taken another lesson: petty partisan attacks against anyone even vaguely against the order. In this case, they’re actually taking action against someone who’s against Bush, apparently in the interest of sucking up to the Bush Administration.
The Conservative Defence Minister intervened personally to stop the Royal Military College of Canada from awarding an honorary degree tomorrow to a retired American general who has been highly critical of the Bush administration.
…
Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic, said the decision was an attempt by the Conservatives to curry favour with the Bush administration. “I’m surprised that the Minister would interfere in such a relatively minor decision,” she said.
“It’s incredibly petty.”
She said Gen. Zinni had a distinguished record, including commanding Canadian troops as the head of Central Command, and deserved better treatment regardless of his dispute with the Bush administration. “And I’m not sure why that would be a good enough reason not to confer an honorary degree,” Ms. Black said.
Reminds me of that old joke about Mulroney. Let’s update it for the times:
Q: What’s fourteen inches long and hangs between George W. Bush’s legs?
A: Stephen Harper’s tie.
Oh, and let’s take a direct swing at Bush and his team this time.
Apparently we’re going to have to just trust him about the whole domestic spying thing, since any kind of investigation into it would apparently “cause ‘exceptionally grave damage’ to national security.”
Yes, that’s right: the whole concept of checks and balances that the US government was modelled on is now officially out the window. One more piece of evidence (as if any more were needed) that this is, in fact, the Imperial Presidency.
Shayana Kadidal, an attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, called the administration’s motion “undemocratic.”
Ample safeguards could be put in place to allow the case to continue without disclosing classified information, he said. The Center has also argued that the court already has enough information in hand to decide whether the spying program was legal, based on admissions the administration has already made about the effort.
“The Bush administration is trying to crush a very strong case against domestic spying without any evidence or argument,” he said in a written statement. “Can the president tell the courts which cases they can rule on? If so, the courts will never be able to hold the president accountable for breaking the law.”
The article also includes the Justice Department’s response, which is surprisingly like one of the standard answers to the theodicy problem: “You’re not God, and if you knew what he knows, what looks like evil to you would be revealed as part of the greater good.” As an atheist, that argument doesn’t hold much water for me in theodicy, and it certainly doesn’t hold any in politics.
Just to cut this rant shorter, I’ll just give you links to the rest:
