so what ben? sbs shouldnt have shown the photos out of respect for the americans? or because they were not that bad, or not done 'in cold blood'?

just one paragraph ago you were attacking the 'hypocracy of the left' for not publishing the cartoons (strange since the more right leaning papers in this country declined to publish them too), and for showing 'respect' to muslim sensabilities. so you defend the 'right' to publish cartoons critical of all religions. but attack the 'right' (or duty) of a news broadcaster to publish photos of torture and (potentialy) murder?

not only that but you appear to criticise sbs on the basis that publishing the photos will futher inflame anger in the muslim world at the same time as reveling in the confirmation of your prejudices in 'barbaric' nature of the response to the cartoons.

the double standards and hypocracy are all yours.

as far as i can remember sbs have censored neither their vision of the abuse in abu grade, nor the riots and deaths in islamic countries following the disemination of the cartoons. and nor should they.

Why, all of the sudden is Leunig not proud of his work? What is wrong with his work being published in an Iranian newspaper...he did draw this cartoon did'nt he?

Leunig should stand tall and proud of his work, where-ever it is published.

Cause and Effect.

His work is viewed as a type of art, therefore his cartoons are somewhat timeless.

His cartoons are always at others expense, this guy has a distinct pattern of low self esteem orientated humour, directed at his chosen peoples/religions.

You dont smear yourself in honey then run at a beehive, he must be aware of the possible backlash of his cartoons, yet this is probably what drives him, giving him that taste of importance he so desperately yearns for.

You go deliberately picking fights and stirring up the pot you must face the consequences. Free speech is one thing, tastless shots to antagonise a particular group is another. We have a right to free speech, but those on the recieving end have a right to slander, defamation and if the shoe does not fit, ANGER at this pork chop. By printing it, it says you approve of this brand of humour.

I hope this bloke has a well guarded facility, i would not like to be him.

Cartoonists should stick to Tin Tin and sitting in their rooms with no mates, not blatant poor humour knocking others.

"Why, all of the sudden is Leunig not proud of his work? What is wrong with his work being published in an Iranian newspaper...he did draw this cartoon did'nt he?

"Leunig should stand tall and proud of his work, where-ever it is published."

I'm sure Leunig does stand tall and proud, even if he does need a haircut, but art is interpreted in the context in which it is shown. For example, Russian Jewish painter Marc Chagall's fine 1908 painting, Red Nude Sitting Up, http://www.artsoho.net/img/chagalls01.jpg would be admired in an Australian art gallery, but would not go down at all well in a public exhibition in Teheran, where women expose their head hair - much less their pubic hair - only in private.

Leunig is probably concerned that his cartoon connotes something quite else in an Iranian newspaper than it would have in an Australian one - something that he did not wish to express at all.

After all, it was not he who sent it to the Iranian paper. It was the mob at Chaser, http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/02/15-1506-7237.html

Abbott and Costello Meet the 12th Imam.

"Health Minister Tony Abbott has warned against ostracising or “shouting down” hardline Muslims, saying it would be a mistake to dismiss those advocating sharia law as “un-Australian”. In contrast to federal treasurer Peter Costello’s attack on “mushy, misguided multiculturalism”.

Why don't we start with you Tony. I think the local inman wants to marry your 9 year old daughter! Cheers!

Mr. Howard, please bring this knucklehead to heel... Mr. Abbott is really down under, down dhimmi under the Islamic jack boot.

1) There is no such "dalliance".
2) Leunig "gained international notoriety and infamy"? I don't think so.
3) The active state-terrorism of "Israeli pilots drop[ping] bombs on Palestinian civilians" (and flying home for dinner and a pat on the back) is always worse, morally and in scale, than the reactive terrorism of those who strike back. The thinking behind such reactive terrorism, however futile, counterproductive and immoral, reduces essentially to 'If we do nothing, we suffer. If we resist, we suffer. But so do they.' Palestinian violence is a reaction to their dispossession and oppression. Israeli violence comes from a refusal to acknowledge Israel's responsibility for that dispossession and oppression.
4)"A second cartoon...suggested that the Israelis had driven the Palestinians off their land [correct in 1948 and continuing in 2006], systematically oppressed them [correct: 1948-2006], and slandered those who defend them [correct: Dr Phil's claim that Leunig is dallying with Iranian Holocaust deniers and accusing him of "anti-Jewish racism", for example.]
5)Leunig is guilty of "pro-Palestinian bias"? Or perhaps he's just an instinctive supporter of the ill-treated and downtrodden. Dr Phil, of course, couldn't be accused of 'pro-Israel bias' now, could he?
6)"Leunig simplistically constructs [realistically recognises] the Middle East conflict as the powerful State of Israel [armed to the teeth, nuclearised and with the unconditional backing of Imperial America] oppressing the defenceless [essentially true] and innocent Palestinians [historically correct]."
7)Leunig "suggests that Israel is inficting genocide upon the Palestinians"? If he is, then he's in good company: Article 11 of the 1948 Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide as (a)killing members of a group (b)causing serious bodily harm to members of the group (c)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
8)Leunig "has abused the holocaust for political gain". This is rank hypocrisy. Dr Phil, dare yourself to read Norman G Finkelstein's 'The Holocaust Industry; Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering'.