…in Saskatoon (Saskatchewan) where a decision was made by the director of the Public Library, Zenon Zuzak, to allow library patrons to view the cartoons on their own. Story from the Saskatoon Homepage.
Recent Posts
- E-Books Can Subvert Book Bans, But Corporate Profit-Seeking Stands in the Way March 10, 2024
- Ten Stories That Shaped 2023 December 15, 2023
- War Sows Disruption at the National Book Awards November 16, 2023
- “No one else is saving it”: the fight to protect a historic music collection November 16, 2023
- No, I Don’t Want to Join Your Book Club November 9, 2023
- Iowa election 2023: Pella Public Library retains independence November 9, 2023
- A door at a Swedish library was accidentally left open 446 people came in, borrowed 245 books. Every single one was returned November 9, 2023
Recent Comments
- Examining Arab and Muslim librarians in fiction – Pop Culture Library Review on Librarian Combats Muslim Stereotypes
- St. Paul libraries face moment of reckoning – LISNews – News For Librarians on Secret and mysterious libraries
- Ellie on Just How Gross Are Library Books, Exactly?
- Prodigious1one on The Teaching Librarian Versus The Teacher
- Jason on Ten Stories That Shaped 2019
- centaurea on Libraries using Internet Trust Tools
LISNews Archives
- March 2024 (1)
- December 2023 (1)
- November 2023 (5)
- October 2023 (1)
- September 2023 (1)
- August 2023 (22)
- February 2023 (3)
- January 2023 (20)
- December 2022 (6)
- February 2022 (3)
- December 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- July 2020 (11)
- June 2020 (11)
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (2)
- November 2019 (4)
- October 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (1)
- May 2019 (4)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (11)
- February 2019 (41)
- January 2019 (31)
- December 2018 (6)
- November 2018 (11)
- October 2018 (15)
- September 2018 (9)
- August 2018 (22)
- July 2018 (1)
- June 2018 (1)
- May 2018 (7)
- April 2018 (8)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (17)
- January 2018 (13)
- December 2017 (8)
- November 2017 (16)
- October 2017 (18)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (8)
- July 2017 (8)
- June 2017 (21)
- May 2017 (39)
- April 2017 (22)
- March 2017 (15)
- February 2017 (21)
- January 2017 (40)
- December 2016 (20)
- November 2016 (9)
- October 2016 (20)
- September 2016 (48)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (55)
- June 2016 (61)
- May 2016 (39)
- April 2016 (67)
- March 2016 (81)
- February 2016 (85)
- January 2016 (69)
- December 2015 (90)
- November 2015 (126)
- October 2015 (107)
- September 2015 (85)
- August 2015 (42)
- July 2015 (32)
- June 2015 (35)
- May 2015 (39)
- April 2015 (14)
- March 2015 (60)
- February 2015 (75)
- January 2015 (44)
- December 2014 (30)
- November 2014 (39)
- October 2014 (43)
- September 2014 (30)
- August 2014 (36)
- July 2014 (59)
- June 2014 (46)
- May 2014 (62)
- April 2014 (58)
- March 2014 (52)
- February 2014 (37)
- January 2014 (42)
- December 2013 (41)
- November 2013 (25)
- October 2013 (43)
- September 2013 (28)
- August 2013 (32)
- July 2013 (61)
- June 2013 (51)
- May 2013 (50)
- April 2013 (52)
- March 2013 (68)
- February 2013 (62)
- January 2013 (62)
- December 2012 (53)
- November 2012 (64)
- October 2012 (111)
- September 2012 (109)
- August 2012 (128)
- July 2012 (57)
- June 2012 (75)
- May 2012 (163)
- April 2012 (158)
- March 2012 (109)
- February 2012 (125)
- January 2012 (136)
- December 2011 (109)
- November 2011 (74)
- October 2011 (82)
- September 2011 (95)
- August 2011 (106)
- July 2011 (93)
- June 2011 (102)
- May 2011 (94)
- April 2011 (105)
- March 2011 (100)
- February 2011 (92)
- January 2011 (110)
- December 2010 (124)
- November 2010 (83)
- October 2010 (118)
- September 2010 (115)
- August 2010 (110)
- July 2010 (108)
- June 2010 (113)
- May 2010 (78)
- April 2010 (121)
- March 2010 (191)
- February 2010 (182)
- January 2010 (168)
- December 2009 (129)
- November 2009 (116)
- October 2009 (131)
- September 2009 (149)
- August 2009 (162)
- July 2009 (166)
- June 2009 (189)
- May 2009 (112)
- April 2009 (164)
- March 2009 (185)
- February 2009 (151)
- January 2009 (173)
- December 2008 (200)
- November 2008 (155)
- October 2008 (252)
- September 2008 (267)
- August 2008 (193)
- July 2008 (208)
- June 2008 (161)
- May 2008 (208)
- April 2008 (253)
- March 2008 (201)
- February 2008 (246)
- January 2008 (185)
- December 2007 (200)
- November 2007 (208)
- October 2007 (241)
- September 2007 (227)
- August 2007 (269)
- July 2007 (201)
- June 2007 (205)
- May 2007 (157)
- April 2007 (217)
- March 2007 (250)
- February 2007 (183)
- January 2007 (181)
- December 2006 (163)
- November 2006 (180)
- October 2006 (170)
- September 2006 (215)
- August 2006 (210)
- July 2006 (202)
- June 2006 (257)
- May 2006 (280)
- April 2006 (271)
- March 2006 (347)
- February 2006 (284)
- January 2006 (300)
- December 2005 (267)
- November 2005 (238)
- October 2005 (364)
- September 2005 (349)
- August 2005 (377)
- July 2005 (382)
- June 2005 (403)
- May 2005 (371)
- April 2005 (420)
- March 2005 (367)
- February 2005 (368)
- January 2005 (346)
- December 2004 (311)
- November 2004 (260)
- October 2004 (308)
- September 2004 (228)
- August 2004 (319)
- July 2004 (395)
- June 2004 (338)
- May 2004 (288)
- April 2004 (364)
- March 2004 (348)
- February 2004 (438)
- January 2004 (266)
- December 2003 (222)
- November 2003 (226)
- October 2003 (281)
- September 2003 (317)
- August 2003 (315)
- July 2003 (278)
- June 2003 (282)
- May 2003 (265)
- April 2003 (271)
- March 2003 (249)
- February 2003 (283)
- January 2003 (210)
- December 2002 (186)
- November 2002 (184)
- October 2002 (222)
- September 2002 (210)
- August 2002 (207)
- July 2002 (184)
- June 2002 (166)
- May 2002 (160)
- April 2002 (195)
- March 2002 (183)
- February 2002 (195)
- January 2002 (203)
- December 2001 (203)
- November 2001 (238)
- October 2001 (183)
- September 2001 (153)
- August 2001 (204)
- July 2001 (243)
- June 2001 (176)
- May 2001 (92)
- April 2001 (116)
- March 2001 (153)
- February 2001 (142)
- January 2001 (131)
- December 2000 (110)
- November 2000 (124)
- October 2000 (128)
- September 2000 (132)
- August 2000 (138)
- July 2000 (166)
- June 2000 (135)
- May 2000 (120)
- April 2000 (121)
- March 2000 (181)
- February 2000 (163)
- January 2000 (54)
- November 1999 (37)
What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
The library director at this place seems to be ethically challenged or some kind of fool if he said that, as the article states, “The Library Director said the cartoons contained were not hateful or demeaning.” I know some pretty stupid people, and even they would see plainly that such cartoons are indeed hateful and demeaning. If Zenon Zuzak does not think the images of Muhammed are not hateful, I wonder what Zuzak would deem as hateful?
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
Yeah, the cartoons are not, well, flattering. They are derogatory and discriminatory. But I think people should be able to see them and make their own opinions. Why not? Do we need to be protected from information, good bad or indifferent? That seems to be the current trend of our times and I don’t like it. I never like being left out of the loop.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
I’m ok about exhibiting them so long as derogatory cartoons about highly revered religious figures from other religions are shown. If you wish to abuse a religion, you can’t focus on only one – all must be fair game and immune from being, as you say, “protected.” This will, of course, never happen, as the library director, in this instance, who did this is not stupid, which means he could only be doing this on behalf of a conscious personal agenda based on religious prejudice. Or another way to put it: had he admitted that the cartoons were offensive but he was obliged to exhibit them on free speech grounds and was willing to show equally offensive images against other religions on simlar grounds, and did so – such would be the only other motive. Since he did not do that, it’s obvious he has a prejudiced agenda. But of course, I’m sort of joking with my solution, as allowing equal opportunity for expression of religious prejudice is all absurd. Not all information is “unprotected,” e.g., yelling fire in a crowded theater when ther isn’t one is a typical example. Religious and other forms of intolerance seem to have significantly, even radically ramped up in the last few years, and librarians should not be so stupid as to stimulate and fuel hatred and fanaticism and rage that has emerged from that ramping up, thereby heaping more scorn on an institution – libraries – that is suffering more than enough trouble trying to survive due to other reasons than covertly religiously bigoted directors who hide under the banner of “free speech.” That a library director chose to join his colleagues in the newspaper industry to help fuel religious hatred bodes ill to the future of various institutions in this world, and not only libraries. BTW, I am pleased you brought this article to our attention, and please continue to post such articles at LISnews.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
“That a library director chose to join his colleagues in the newspaper industry to help fuel religious hatred bodes ill to the future of various institutions in this world”
You’re overreacting. A magazine issue should NOT be pulled because of a lousy cartoon. Did you pull Vanity Fair when Demi Moore was picture nude on the cover? What about when an article is critical of Scientology? What about MAD magazine?
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
Your response seems to demote or glom everybody to the same level: Jesus, Demi, Charles Manson, Ghandi – they’re all on the same level to you. Demi Moore in the nude or Mad magazine are not going to provoke riots and murder. Messing with revered religious figures and symbols is risky and potential fatal business for victims and perpetrators. Not that I like it, but that’s reality. Any librarian with a smidgeon of common sense is going to stay away from screwing with religious figures based on what in the end amounts to phony abstract principles, because they’re applied in an inconsistent manner, especially when the revered religious figures are, as in this case, revered by a billion people. One wonders how tranquil and non-overreacting you and others would be if some dumb librarian posted exhibits of hateful images of Martin Luther King or Jesus or Moses.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
Something is not hateful just because I am a hypersensitive, reactionary, shit-head. “Hateful” is in the intent. If anyone is being hateful in that controversy, it is the screaming extremists who are demanding murder and that the rest of the world be blinded, deafened, and muted because they are too spineless to accept responsiblity for their own pettiness and spite. The originators of those cartoon were not being hateful in crafting them. Most of those cartoons don’t even have any apparent meaning, and the rest can be interpreted subjectively. Which means they can mean one thing to me and something entirely different to everybody else.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
Free speech overpowers jihadists and rioters. I cannot foresee the future nor control the actions of reactionary idiots in another country.
The issue isn’t the images – it’s the violent reactions of fools. If I see something objectionable I don’t throw rocks and start fires. I certainly don’t attack foreign embassies and consulates. The actions of the rioters are as much complaints that the Danish government was not despotic and did not shut down a newspaper and punish a cartoonist for exercising free speech and free thought.
If a Library displays parodies or ridiculous image of Martin Luther King or Jesus I don’t expect a riot to occur. Demonstrations, complaints, and discussions but not riots.
The self-censorship you are encouraging is bowing is not in consideration of other cultures, but in consideration of avoiding critical thinking.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
Oh, it’s clear the intent was to offend. One doesn’t need a degree in art history to see that. Because a whole lot of people “interpreted” enough of the cartoons to notice they were offensive and demeaning. Since you aren’t a member of their religion or willing to put yourself in their shoes for a moment, you of course can’t understand why they are offended. It’s a such a devious dummy-wammy: create deliberately offensive, hostile cartoons of a revered religious figure, then critisize targets of your calculated offense for their *inevitable* nasty reaction. Provoke them, then accuse them of being the bad guys when they react. The trouble with this strategy is that sometimes, when you shit on somebody, they are going to throw all of it back in your face with interest. Ask all the dead husbands of abused wives who decided they weren’t going to take it anymore.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
See my resposne to fang-fang after this, as I think replies also to your post. One thing I’d add to that post: this reaction to the cartoons should be seen, I think, as a “last straw” symbolic response to abuses happening to Muslims in various parts of the globe, e.g., the recent French riots, the abuses against apartheidized Palestinian, the Iraqi and Afghani wars, and so on. They are not just reacting against mere cartoons, but against western-originated oppression occurring to their populations in many places. The anger this provoked and some of the violence at least, was not all from jihadi and fundy wackos but also from ordinary Muslims who have suffered and had enough of western abuses and humiliation. The really bad news is not that the riots occurred, but rather they signal a willingness of the non-extreme elements of the Muslim population to increasingly sign up and sympathize with the radical fundamentalist factions of the religion. Cynical observers of this phenomenon will say that of course, that’s what the western political elites want. Why they’d want it is a whole other story.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
After reading “western-originated oppression” in your post I assume we are at a fundamental disagreement. Most U.S. foreign policy can rarely be described as fair to all parties but to say people are lashing at at foreign oppression is baloney.
Any Middle Eastern Muslim who blames “The West” for all their problems is being foolish. French riots and the invasion of Afghanistan as western oppression? You’re way off base on that one.
Re:What Would it Take to be “Hateful”?
ROFL!!
Oh, you poor, sad, child!
You think that something is offensive because of majority opinion? Are you serious?!
1: Offensive is a purely subjective determination. What offends you does not necessarily offend anybody else.
2: There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere. Ultimately, everything is offensive.
3: I am not going to find something offensive just because you or somebody else does, and NO ONE is under any compunction to do so. People who are offended by something solely because somebody else is, is being not a human being, but a sheep.
4: Since the cartoons are ‘offensive to Islam’, they have not been reprinted in most Islamic cultures. Hence: the overwhelming majority of the ‘offended’ haven’t seen them and don’t even know what they being offended by.
Oh? And upon what evidence or witnessed actions do you conclude that I am not a Muslim? The fact that I am not a reactionary terrorist? Upon what evidence do you conclude I have never been offended by material critical of my sacred cows?
What leads you to state that I am unable to put myself in their shoes or understand how someone might be offended? Truly offended; not this faux offense that is merely self-righteousness run rampant.
Do, please, tell. I could use a good laugh.
Non Sequitur: Your statement is not coordinated with your argument. There is no relationship between being a victim of spousal abuse and throwing a shit fit because you think your petty prejudices are exempt from criticism.