Canadian Soldiers Under Fire in Afghanistan Combat and Casualties Increasing as Canada Leads Occupation Force Nicole Burton, News Editor The Canadian Armed Forces suffered their 10th fatal casu- alty in Afghanistan last week, during a “routine patrol” when a military Humvee supposedly rolled over, killing one soldier and injuring seven others. Corporal Paul Davis, who was killed in the incident last Thursday, was one of 2000 new soldiers who have been deployed to the province of Kandahar in the last six months. On the same day, Prime Minister Steven Harper said, “This is a critical mission...the success of this mission is important not just in terms of Canada’s objectives, but important in terms of the contribution we are making to the world community and global security.” A similar situation was reported last fall when Sergeant Braun Scott Woodfield, originally from British Columbia, was killed during a patrol. Casualties among Canadian forces in Afghanistan have drastically increased since Canada moved operations into the Kandahar region in summer 2005. Last month, four Canadian soldiers were injured in different attacks on opnewseditor@gmail.com Canadian forces, and in January, Canadian diplomat Glynn Berry was killed in an attack on a Canadian military envoy, the first Canadian diplomat to be killed in the country. This month, Canada took leadership of the multina- tional occupation force, commanded by Canadian Armed Forces Brigadier General David Fraser. The force includes 2200 Canadian soldiers. Increased attacks have come hand-in-hand with announcements that Canada will be “stepping up its pres- ence” in Afghanistan and “on the world stage” in the com- ing years. Last April, the Canadian military budget was doubled, and 8,000 new positions were opened in the army and the reserves. Despite a recent Globe and Mail poll revealing that over 60 percent of Canadians do not want soldiers in Afghanistan, government officials in Ottawa are warning people to anticipate a much higher level of involvement— one that is likely to last 10 years. Mohammed Cartoons Debate Continues The Strand’s Cartoon Attacked and Defended Rehaana Manek, The Varsity (University of Toronto) TORONTO (CUP)—As editors of Victoria College stu- dent paper The Strand defend their decision to publish an editorial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus kissing just before reading week, representatives of the Muslim Students’ Association are calling on administrators and students to take action. “There is responsibility along with free speech,” Safiyyah Ally, communications director for the MSA, “It reflects a lack of understanding of issues on campus, and people want us to take a more aggressive stance. There was ‘Know Radical Islam week, and then the cartoons, people want to know, what’s next?” Messages sent out to the MSA’s email list this week urged members to express their disapproval of the car- toon’s publication by writing letters both to The Strand and to admin, but also expressed some appreciation toward the administration for its commitment to organizing several educational initiatives on Sunday. For many students, however, frustration is still felt far more than gratitude. “T haven't had many times where people came into my office and just started crying,” said U of T’s student union President Paul Bretscher in the aftermath of the publica- tion. “There is a deep sense of hurt, and there is also anger,” said Ally. “We have been trying to calm people and make them feel like they are taking an active role. Muslims on campus feel that their faith is not being taken seriously. They feel marginalized and victimized; they feel that they have lost their voice. Someone even posted the cartoon on the MSA door.” Meanwhile, editors of The Strand attempted to clear the air over the issue of responsibility. “T didn’t personally make, or even have a great deal of influence over, the decision to publish the cartoon,” said Nick Ragaz, managing editor of The Strand. “Some media take a much less subtle view of Islam than The Strand. We didn’t set out to hurt or attack anyone. We were only ful- filling our responsibility as a paper.” “Tt was a full editorial board decision,” said Strand co- Editor-in-Chief Karen Whaley. When asked if she was still happy that they printed it, she replied, “In my personal opinion, absolutely.” The February issue of the paper featured a cartoon of Jesus and Prophet Muhammad entering a “Tunnel of Tolerance” together. The cartoon was originally commis- sioned by The Varsity, but editors decided not to publish the cartoon after it was submitted. Although it has received much criticism and negative response, Victoria University president P. W. Gooch sup- ported The Strand’ decision to “inform and invoke discus- sion.” “We can’t live by religious taboos,” said Ragaz. “I respect the faith a great deal, but people should be capable of drawing their own conclusions. SAC accused us of attacking Muslims on campus, and that accusation is hard to take since that is not what we were out to accomplish.” On Ragaz’s personal website, www.livefreeordie.ca, his mission statement reads, “We believe that personal individ- ual freedom can be maintained only by living with a sense of civic responsibility, compassion, and moral justice.” When the cartoon was originally published, the MSA sent out an official statement to their members condemn- ing its publication. “When I saw it, I felt like crying,” said Ally. “There is a great deal of ignorance on campus; we don’t have enough engagement with other groups and that’s unfortunate. We are not against free speech. This cartoon doesn’t violate policy, but it does not create an environment where civil discourse can thrive and within these constraints, it limits free speech.”