Audax- Suggestions for your homework.

July 4, 2007

Proclaiming our roots: Notre culture-notre langue

People like parades. They provide joy, amusement and colour to young and old alike. Some parades are more interesting than others. Some parades get worldwide recognition or on the contrary, remain of local fame. When attending a parade, it is expected to see the colour of the place and its culture. One does not go to China to see some Halloween outfits during their New Year festival, but to see their famous dragon dance. And, vice versa, Chinese tourists in the west are not ecstatic to see a dragon during our Santa Claus/Father Christmas parade. It makes sense.

The St. Jean Baptiste parade is one of the most loved in Quebec. It is connected with the roots of its people, with its history, language, feelings and hopes. This parade is not a simple parade, but an occasion to parade a sense of identity, of belonging to a culture. In the heart of the multiculturalism, Montreal gives the whole world the image of a cosmopolitan city, with no specific distinction. The 2006 St. Jean Baptiste parade made place for almost every possible culture, but lost the significance of the day. This year’s edition got its vengeance. It simply put the foot in the door without fearing proclaiming its roots and linguistic heritage. The marching characters, in the shape of giant dolls, gave the viewer a very strong sense of cultural identity: watching this parade, you sense the feeling of living in a European environment. Whether some like it or not, the truth proclaimed in the streets during the St.Jean Baptiste parade in Montreal is that those who had created this country are the French , the English and the Irish. They built it; they died working the land, discovering and making roads, farming and harvesting. They built schools and factories, they survived or died in the heart of the six months winter. Some of the new arrivals like to place themselves on the same historical ladder with the French and the English, saying that “We are all immigrants”. Well, yes, we are, only that there is a 400 years gap between.

Les Geants de la Fete nationale

Giant dolls are a European tradition and France has plenty of events where these characters take the leading role. On St. Jean Baptiste, June 24th, Le Journal de Montreal published a list of the most popular surnames in Quebec, and Montreal served a shocking reality: it is not Tremblay, but Nguyen. Well, people reading the article put on faces, sighed, raised their eyebrows and re-read the large print. The typed letters were there, black on white. Sick and tired of multicultural parades (see the Parade du Noel 2006 in Montreal, where among others, the Chinese came with their dragon) I was hoping and expecting that the 2007 St. Jean Baptiste parade in Montreal would be different. And it was. Probably as a result of the “accomodement raisonnable” issue, the organizers came with the idea of having the courage to show our roots. This year’s parade brought some of us back in time and gave others a history lesson: the roots of the French who came here, the English and the aboriginals who were already here. The parade projected a short glimpse of history, with the first arrivals, Champlain, Marguerite Bourgeoys and les Filles du Roi, the first peasants of this land. Marguerite Bourgeoys, one of the giant dolls, left Troyes in February 1653 and she arrived in Montreal nine months later, on the 16th of November. She is considered co-foundress of Montreal, with the nurse, Jeanne Mance, and the master designer, Monsieur de Maisonneuve. Five huge figures, each nearly six meters high, in the European tradition, marched in front of the public. Among those being recognized were Samuel de Champlain, the founder of Quebec City, and Ludger Duvernay, a journalist of the 1800s who founded the Association St. Jean Baptiste, now known as the Societe St. Jean Baptiste, in 1834. The Union des producteurs agricoles, Quebec’s farmers federation, sponsored a third figure, based on fictional character Marie Moisson, the nourishing mother; The fourth giant was a fictional woman, this one paying homage to the aboriginal people of Quebec. The surprise came when the most recognizable giant doll appeared: Rene Levesque, the founder of the Parti Quebecois political party. The dolls were made by the Au Pays des Geants company, with a 25 year old experience in this field. Jean Dorion (president of the Fete nationale in Montreal committee and president of the Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montreal organization) has promised a special parade. And he kept his word. Proclaiming our roots and bringing into public attention our culture and our language could be seen as brave in a present where any heritage pride shown by the majority, i. e. the host society, is labeled as “nationalism”, thus “anti-multiculturalism”, “anti-”, “anti-”.

It was refreshing to see such a parade where one can easily trace back our past. And one can easily recognize and enjoy the imagery of a common cultural heritage. It was refreshing to see something European when every event tends to overwhelmingly show the visible minorities’ cultural background, while ignoring our own.

September 26, 2007


Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”. Canada is receptive and wants to satisfy diverse cultural sensitivities. The kirpan in schools, the turban replacing motorcycle helmets, and even the hijab in the army are only a few examples to prove Canada’s cultural responsiveness and tolerance. Like any other democratic country, the Canadian society values individual and collective freedoms and rights. As one fundament of such societies stays the declaration of equality between women and man. But this equality wasn’t here from the very beginning. This equality was achieved through long fight.

As part of the new world, Canada had to put the first bricks of future democratic institutions, shield for human rights and liberty. The path was long and bumpy. Women had no rights, following the historical situation of women in every society. The pioneers for women’s rights had a long way to go. Nellie McClung fought for women’s rights to vote, mothers’ allowances, public health nursing, free medical and dental care for children, liberalized birth control, divorce laws, and improved property rights for married women. She fought for women to be considered “persons” and have the right to be appointed to the Canadian Senate. In October 1929 the Judicial Committee ruled that Canadian women were, in fact, persons and could be appointed to the Senate. 1912 is the year when the first woman in the Canadian history was appointed as full professor at McGill University in Montreal. As for voting, Canadian women got this right in each province before 1940. Quebec was the one before the last (Northwest Territories) to recognize women’s right to express their political choice. This happened April, 1940. When it comes to Quebec, many things are different. Nothing was gained easily, nothing came fast. Women had to wait long years until their rights were accorded in this province. One of such discrepancy is the situation of married women. According to Quebec law, a woman can never use her married name in any official document and is to maintain her maiden name for the rest of her life. I judge that Quebec’s civil law denies women’s freedom of choice, and disregards cultural tradition and choice regarding marriage. If in the rest of Canada, women are given the choice of officially using their married name, Quebec is anchored in a phony law that denies freedom of choice in the name of “women’s freedom”. The origins of the law go back to the creation of the Quebec Charter of Rights, which clearly defined equality between men and women. And this equality was proclaimed by forcing women to stay “maidens”. It is interesting how a woman is forbidden from taking her husband’s surname after marriage, but a pardoned criminal has the right to change his/her name, in order to “protect” himself/herself. This outdated law must be abolished, since the “historical “reasons which determined its creation do not exist anymore. Women’s equality in our society doesn’t have to be proved anymore. It is a gained fight. The war is over. Not changing surnames is frequent for celebrities, but even so, many simply choose to add their married name next to their maiden one. The latest famous example is actress Demi Moore who has decided to change her surname and take her husband’s name: Kutcher. If keeping your maiden name is perfectly acceptable for Chinese, Korean, Iranian or Arab women, which are cultures where women usually do not change their name after marriage, as a European, I request to be given the choice of choosing my name and the right to use my married name in all official documents. Many Arab and Indonesian societies commonly do not have family names in the English sense of the term. French women do not legally change names when they marry. However, it is customary that they take their husband’s name as a “usage name”. This is not a legal obligation and not all women decide to do so. In Hungary both the bride and the bridegroom have to declare before the wedding which name they will use, a family sharing a common surname. In Brazil, until the recent reform of the Civil Law, women had to take their husbands’ surnames; not doing so was seen as evidence of concubinage. Also in Dutch tradition, marriage requires the female to drop her maiden name and take on the husband’s name. The current Dutch law gives people more freedom: upon marriage, both partners keep their own surname, but are given the choice to use their partner’s surname, or a combination of both. In Germany the name law is ruled by sexual equality since 1994: the woman can adopt her husband’s name or the man may adopt his wife’s surname. In Japan, marriage law requires that legally married couples share a surname. In Romania, when you marry, your name is automatically changed to that of your husband and all your documents are emitted with your acquired married name. But, a woman has the choice to request to keep her maiden name after marriage. As a social convention, in many cultures married women are called “Mrs. X” (their husband’s name) and unmarried women, or divorced (sometimes even after divorce some women choose to keep their “married”� name) are automatically called “Miss”, no matter their age. It is a change of status and a change of emotional character. It is a new position in the community and everybody knows that you are married because you have your husband’s name. Taking a married name might serve as daily and public markers of the marital union and the rights afforded thereto. Let’s not forget the emotional factor. Name change is a basic legal act that is recognized in practically all legal systems to allow an individual the opportunity to adopt a name other than the name given at birth, marriage, or adoption. In Quebec, any immigrant wishing to change his/her name is given this right. But married women are denied a fundamental freedom, that of choosing their surnames.This rule applies to all women domiciled in Quebec, even if they married outside Quebec or outside Canada, except women married before April 2, 1981 already using their husband’s last name to exercise their civil rights. (Source: Justice.gouv.qc.ca) Marriage is an institution which joins together people’s lives in emotional and economic ways. Even if in our modern times, there are many contemporary critiques of the institution of marriage, developed from a feminist viewpoint, suggesting that marriage can be particularly disadvantageous to women economically and socially, I believe that imposing any directions in this respect is infringement upon our human rights. I am not a Lucy Stone and there are many other women who are not. Though some feminists have asserted that taking a marital name detracts from the individual worth of the spouses, I request to have the choice of officially and legally using my husband’s surname. I do not believe that any of these feminists is being forced to anything against her will. Since they have the choice of not getting married, of not having a father for their child and the right of keeping their “maiden” surnames, their mission is accomplished. I consider that those women who, on the contrary, want to legalize a relationship by marriage, have a father for their child and use their husband’s surnames should be given equal understanding, respect, juridical and social support. Lesbians and gay couples have received the right to marry, to adopt children. Religious, sexual minorities turned the world upside down and the world decided to grant their more or less queer requirements. In this whirlpool of requests and approvals, married women in Quebec were completely ignored. In many cultures, if a woman lives with a man and doesn’t use his surname, it signifies that they are not married, thus it is a relation of concubinage. No matter how widely such relationships are socially accepted, some women are uncomfortable in presenting themselves in the above named type of relation. When you book a hotel room under different names, it is as if you are not a couple, but some people having an affair. This is humiliating. In many cultures, a couple who is married has the same surname. This is the social sign of a family, the sign of a couple legally married, who took joint responsibilities. Marriage is not a simple event. Marriage is a change of status; marriage is a new life, with a new name. Some women practice their new signature with emotion. The first document a woman signed with her husband’s name is regarded as a precious memory. Some women simply like to be called “Mrs. X”. A letter received on two different names is not addressed to a “family”. If some women do not wish to change their names and want to stay for the rest of their lives under their name of birth, it is their choice. But other women think that it is an honour to use their husband’s name. We must have the choice to choose our name after marriage. If the law is sensitive to human rights, than we must change its compulsory nature and enable women to make a choice. This means respect for human rights. I request the law to be changed and permit women to choose. I believe that the mentality according to which taking your husbands name is submission and you become his “propriety” belongs to the pioneering years of our fight for our freedoms and emancipation. We don’t have to wear trousers or smoke with ostentation in public anymore to prove that we are “free”. Sexual revolution and a tolerant society made everything possible: teenage mothers, fatherless children, fashion that shows nudity etc. What was long ago a gesture of rebellion against social taboos has become in our days as common as eating an apple. I believe that even feminists would agree that the Quebec law acts exactly against our freedoms, thus it must be abolished. I have contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, but they do not consider that the case of a woman who wants to use her married name in all official documents is an issue of human rights. Since their answer was not satisfactory, I decided to send a letter to Prime Minister Jean Charest. The answer I have received from France Lessard, Director of Administration and Correspondance, is as follows: “Dear Mrs. Lussier, On behalf of the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jean Charest, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 12, 2007. Your query falls under the mandate of Mr. Jacques P. Dupuis, ministre de la Justice, and will be passed on to him for consideration.”

It is time to move on and put an end to a dictatorial law and give us nothing else but Freedom of Choice.

July 3, 2007

Who is the new French president? Not a Frenchman, says Le Pen, expressing his total lack of confidence in the newly elected president. More than half of the French trust him to save the values of the country, say others. Labeled like no other modern European politician, Sarkozy gave hope to all those who believe that the national values are in danger, that the national identity is being swallowed by the refusal of the numerous ethnic communities to be integrated in the mainstream society.
Today, when the “ cultural globalization” crusade is PC and mandatory, while any phrase using the word “national” creates tsunamis of anger, Sarkozy made French think of their identity without embarrassment or culpability, and he opened the path for their voices to be heard and listened. He is the one who gave them hope that the Gallic rooster will continue its march in history in its traditional shape and colour. French or non-French, Nicolas Sarkozy was elected with 53.5% of votes ahead of Segolene Royal with 46.5%. That the Royal supporters were calling for re-elections is not something much of surprise, democratic values not being exactly what the socialist-communist ideologies are famous for.

Not a surprise indeed if you pay attention to her crowds of supporters. The great majority comes from certain parts of the globe, thus they can be easily spotted in the mob, parts of the globe where democratic values have no meaning, presidents being changed like socks or shoes, overnight, by a murder or coup d’etat. A president elected by the nation, through free voting, has no meaning for their mindset. Thus, translated to the French land, carriers of their traditions and values, these supporters keep thinking that their simple presence could change what a European nation has built for hundreds of years: a society based on democratic values. They believe that, if they do not agree with the elected president, they can riot in the streets and oust him in order to enthrone whoever they want. Well, unfortunately for them, they have chosen a wrong country to do so. Citizens or not, legal immigrants or not, Royal’s supporters exhibit a gregarious mentality, so much present and contagiously spread throughout Europe in the last decades. Why so much ado? Why the fear of rioting and violence since France is (still) a European, democratic country, where elections are not subject to frauds? Let’s take a closer look at the demographic profile of today’s French voter: there are more than 5 million Muslims who beyond doubt overwhelmingly voted for Royal. Take a look at the democratic values in the Muslim countries. Take a look at their “elections”. Besides Muslims there are south Asians, Chinese etc. ; take a closer look at their countries, at their elections, at their political assassinations. “Candidate for brutality” Royal says, apparently with her eyes closed at the French banlieues residents’ comments, since she got strong support there. Determined to crack down on crime, Sarkozy is not welcomed by those who grew up in families on social welfare, drug transactions, they themselves living gang lives on hard working people’s money. Sarkozy talks about children not respecting their parents and teachers. It is not only a problem specific to the French society, but the entire industrialized world feels the results of the “children’s freedom”. Children should run the world, say some. But children are already running the schools, the cases where teachers are threatened by violent pupils and overcrowded classrooms not being breaking news anymore. Sarkozy wants to change not only one minor thing, but many major ones. If you want to change you must be prepared not to be liked. And you must be prepared for labels and hatred coming from those you are pointing your finger at. Sluggish, violent youths, wandering the French suburbs, selling drugs, with earsplitting tunes emitted by the speakers of their cars, wearing ill-fitting trousers, gigantic chains and gilded plates around their necks? The image is familiar. They are those who started the violent riots in 2006. They feel “excluded”. Well, is it so? They are among those who are hot and bothered by the new president. Sarkozy can not be liked by such groups since Sarkozy doesn’t respect them and he had the courage to imply it, openly. They are what the communist societies called “parasites”. Quite accurate, isn’t it? What is the contribution these rioters brought to the French society? Do they pay taxes? Do they have a job or”¦ profession? “Job? Profession?” blasphemy! would scream the street. What is that sh–t? Instead of playing the slogan of “poor victimized youths” Sarkozy called them what they are, pointing out the reality: a bunch of people who are not interested in working, since working is considered degrading among their gangs. You work if you are stupid, they say. You don’t work and you make money if you are smart, they say. “Smart”? You can figure it out what the meaning of “making money” is for a “smart” one. Sarkozy’s victory has been marked by violent protests in Paris and other French cities. Police said that on the first Tuesday after the final result 20 people were still being held after a second night of violence in the capital. Police used tear gas to disperse around 400 protesters in the western town of Nantes late on Monday, while several hundred protesters gathered in other towns. Police made almost 600 arrests on Sunday. Protesters?! Protesting against WHAT?! Protesters protesting against the democratic results of democratic elections. Is this Europe? Is this a European mindset? The other discontented with the presidential result are the trade unionists, anxious that Sarkozy might take decisions without consulting them, thus, some began to wag their tails. Union workers have impressive amounts of immigrant members, and are, by definition, leftists. If union membership is almost forcibly for each worker in a factory, the demonstrations can also be seen as actions where presence in not compulsory, but required. This reminds us of the communist parades and peace rallies where each factory and institution had to be present, carrying and shouting slogans mastered by the “writers of the regime”. The French unions suggest social unrest if the Sarkozy policy is going to step on their toes.” Racist, nationalist, violent”- what else can be added on the list of labels Sarkozy was crowned with? He won, whether some like it or not. He won as a result of a democratic vote. Vox populi has spoken. In a lax society, where the PC ideologies and the “care” for the “cultural minorities” have given the majority the sentiment of being drastically neglected and discriminated, the voice of common sense has spoken. Half of the French are determined to put an order in a society mined by a crass lack of authority. Policemen are afraid to patrol in certain suburbs; youth attack policemen without penalty. Everything, in the name of “tolerance”. Everything in the name of “multiculturalism”. It has come the time to show an iron hand and the message is clear. Sarkozy might soften his image, but, if he softens his pre-electoral opinions and promises, the same vox populi who wanted him will give him the red card. And, no matter how good you are, once you got it, you must leave the playing field.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN QUEBEC- FORUMS II-III-IV-V
by Madi Lussier
October 2, 2007

FORUMS II-III-IV-V

FORUM II -September 13, 2007- Rouyn-Noranda
With over 80 people on the list, the debate gravitated more or less around the issues of language and religion vs. secularity.
Members of the first nations were also present, emphasizing the historical reality that they have helped out the first settlers with food and hunting.

The notion of family was also touched, without any clear suggestions coming from the speaker. A woman complaining that her children can not learn English, considering living in Québec as simply “frustrating”, brought into discussion what she calls “the special attention given to the fist nations”, while neglecting the needs of the others. She failed going further in her intervention, emphasizing that she loves first nations, but that she can not understand the reason for them to have territories and governmental funding. She was also revolted that their schools receive governmental funding, while “our” schools don’t.
She omitted to express her position on the religious schools that receive governmental funds.


A Lebanese living in Québec for 20 years stated that religion must be under the secular law, and not vice-versa. He also said that it is not the Québecers’ job to become Lebanese, but the immigrants’ job to become Québecers.
A senior gentleman stressed upon the fact that religion is a personal choice and each religious fraction can pray in their designated space (church, mosque, temple, synagogue), but he opposes some institution’s decision to offer special prayer rooms for Muslims.
There was also a hint that there are accommodations made for handicapped. Someone pointed it out that those accommodations are made to integrate handicapped people, and not to separate, which is the case of the religious accommodations.
Numerous speakers called attention upon the fact that this is a secular society, where men and women are equal and where we speak French. Are immigrants willing or not to adhere to these values?
A senior lady from Abitibi-Temiscamingue simply said that it is “idiot” to vote with a veil. Another gentleman continued the idea of voting and he stated that the case of a person with a burnt face who decides to cover his/her face is different from the case of these Muslim women who want to vote with covered faces.
Like in Gatineau, a speaker pointed out that the anchors in Québec are not enough racially diverse.
A difference was also made between other religious groups, like Buddhist, Taoist etc, noticing that the members of these religious communities do not ask for so many accommodations.
A female speaker pointed out that women’s rights in Québec are very recent and asked for vigilance. Forcing women to wear a veil tells them they are not in the public space, but segregated.
The language issue was again brought into public attention, someone declaring his revolt that in Montréal young people usually speak English, not French.
“Are we sleeping? Are we too accommodating”? He asked. To my surprise, someone had the courage to remind everybody of those areas inhabited by certain cultural communities where speaking French or English is simply not necessary, since they can work, live and buy in their mother tongues.
Another senior man stated that we see in our society individuals who want to implement practices inacceptable to our society.
One of the conclusions stated very clearly is that we must reject those accommodations which make a difference between a man and a woman.
A Colombian man who came to Canada in February needed an interpreter, since he couldn’t express himself neither in French or English. In parenthesis, the interpreter informed the audience that he is undertaking a course. Since February, I should say that someone can acquire a decent level of basic French.
This Colombian, having difficulties in expressing himself in Spanish too, was complaining about the lack of special programmes to help immigrants outside of the big cities.
«Ici, on vit comme Québécois» was the general conclusion.

FORUM III -September 19, 2007- Saguenay
The first striking impression was that the organizers of this third Forum were targeting teenagers as audience, since they incline to be quite favourable to “reasonable accommodations “.
The front section of the room was packed with teens, some with piercings, purple hair etc.
Probably the most important speech was held by a person of Egyptian origin, but very Québécois in his feelings. He said that many immigrants do not know anything about Québec’s history, artists, writers etc. and, at the same time, he mentioned the fact that there are no statistics on what exactly have immigrants brought to our society.
Another speaker, also a male, declared himself against those Muslims who want to impose their religious symbols in our society. He also reminded the audience that westerners are outraged that Afghani women wear burkas and we went there to “free” them, while here we have no objections against such a practice.
Another question was asked by a younger speaker who pointed out the issue of compromises required to be made by the majority in order to accommodate all sorts of minorities. “Where are the limits?” he asked.
Jean Pierre Plourde was not afraid to speak his mind and made statements like accommodations are irresponsible and that immigrants must conform to the majority.
A young speaker declared that he is in favour of such accommodations and that he is not bothered by those who wash their feet in the sinks of the institutions where they work.
Another person brought into discussion the Charter of human rights, affirming that this document pushes individualism to its limits and that the document should be revised.
A speaker of Congolese origins said that the Charter is being abused and that we need a chapter for responsibilities as well.
An Algerian immigrant said that it is not the majority who must make concessions, reminding a famous quote: “Evil triumphs because good people don’t do anything”. He also affirmed that Québec must become a country and thus have the right to decide what kind of immigrants we need.
Freedom is not disconnected from responsibilities.
Not few were those who have noticed that our society is more attentive to other religions than to Catholicism.
A Colombian speaker said that integration is a day by day process.
A speaker of German ancestry said something that could become the root of future discussions: “To keep tolerance one must sometimes be intolerant”.
The conclusions of the 3rd Forum showed the traditional gap between generations, teen age speakers supporting ReAccomms, while the other speakers brought into discussion issues like, history, language, our values, integration and respect.

Overall, immigrants proved to be more aware of the importance of preserving national identity and culture than many of those with deep roots in this land.
With a currently 46,000 immigrants a year coming to Québec, the discussions on “reasonable accommodations” are definitely only the beginning.
One solution to the problems would be a total control of immigration for each province.

FORUM IV –St. Jerome was not aired
FORUM V -September 26, 2007- Lanaudière
According to the 2006 census, the city has 429,053 inhabitants. There were many immigrants who wanted to express their position on the subject of reasonable accommodations and some of them, perfectly integrated in this society, like the case of a woman of Pakistani origin, mentioned that immigrants adapt at their pace and that we can not ask them to stop using their language or their way of dressing, since Europeans who travel in other parts of the world continue speaking their language and wearing their European clothing.
All these immigrants pointed out that in that city, immigrants are integrated.
Nobody made a difference between living in a small city and a city like Montréal, where immigrants are given the chance to live in their enclaves, isolating themselves from the mainstream society.
In a small city, immigrants have more chances to integrate than in a big city. If they do not have a community of their own, these immigrants tend to blend in the mainstream society, becoming citizens not only passport holders.
In a big city, they can spend their whole lives not speaking any of the official languages because living in a communal area makes it easy for them to stay isolated, sticking to their “home” habits/traditions, like those South Asian old women begging in Montréal for instance.
This striking image should raise questions for our authorities. Why are these women begging? What is the status of their families here? How did they get here?
People overwhelmingly proclaimed that if you came here, than respect us. If not, go back to your “home”.
With Lanaudière, people began to feel more at ease, daring to say what is obviously against the official state ideology.
And people began to question the immigration policy, even if this won’t please certain political parties.
October, 2007

February 12, 2008

“In Denmark, we have freedom not only to think and talk, but also to draw.” Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen

February 12, 2008- The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) announced several arrests of Muslims planning the murder of Kurt Westergaard. A Moroccan, protected from being deported by his Danish citizenship, and two Tunisians were arrested in Denmark over a plot to murder one of the 12 cartoonists whose drawings of Mohammad caused worldwide turmoil in 2006.

The Moroccan (40) is expected to be released pending further investigation, while the Tunisians will remain detained. Deportation proceedings are brought against them. According to Jyllands-Posten, the newspaper that originally published the cartoons in September 2005, the suspects are accused of planning to kill 73-year-old Kurt Westergaard.

He is the one who drew the cartoon that caused the most controversy, depicting the founder of Islam with a bomb in his turban (the cartoon is republished on the newspaper’s website). The cartoons were later reprinted by more than 50 newspapers, triggering a wave of bloody protests in parts of the Muslim world.

Kurt Westergaard says on Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten: “Of course I fear for my life after the Danish Security and Intelligence Service informed me of the concrete plans of certain people to kill me. However, I have turned fear into anger and indignation. It has made me angry that a perfectly normal everyday activity which I used to do by the thousand was abused to set off such madness. I have attended to my work and I still do. I could not possibly know for how long I have to live under police protection; I think, however, that the impact of the insane response to my cartoon will last for the rest of my life. It is sad indeed, but it has become a fact of my life. “


Image: Wikipedia
The Prophet Mohammad, 17th century Ottoman copy of an early 14th century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex"). Illustration of Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī's al-Âthâr al-bâqiyah ( الآثار الباقيةة ; "The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries")