[Commons-l] The Latuff cartoons

[Dror Kamir]

Technicalities are the best way to avoid discussion (you came to the 
wrong department, we've discussed it already, come back tomorrow etc.)
I have never heard one single good explanation why a caricature which 
shows a known person masturbate (and placing it next to his portrait, so 
everyone who looks for his portrait is forced to see it!) or why a 
caricature which praises terrorists who blow up buses and call for more 
actions like that, should be considered educational material. I didn't 
get an answer why paraphrases of this caricatures are banned, even 
though the caricaturist himself allowed it by releasing his works to the 
public domain.
Whether the administrators mean it or not, there is a strong sense of 
corruption here. There is a strong feeling as if the Commons took a 
political stand, not only by hosting these cartoons, but also by the way 
they are categorized, and by banning opposite opinions. Even though many 
people say privately they object these caricatures, and even though at 
least one of them was voted for deletion, some administrators insist on 
keeping them, without providing proper explanations. Most of the 
explanations resort to technicalities (as we've seen right now), some of 
them claim that the Commons are not censored while they censor the 
opposite opinions.

I want to know how many people on this mailing list actually support 
keeping this caricatures, and what they think about the way they 
categorized. I want to hear a good explanation (for a change) why they 
are considered educational. I would say even more - the offensive nature 
of these caricatures demands that these questions be raised 
periodically, so we know for sure that the controversial decision to 
keep these problematic files is not coincidental nor accidental, but is 
indeed accepted on the community.

Dror K