To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.
Many people seem surprised that a multicultural crunch should have come over religion rather than race. Most incoming migrants from the Muslim world are in search of work and security. They have accepted racial discrimination and cultural subordination as the price of admission. Most Europeans, however surreptitiously, regard that subordination as reasonable.
What Muslims did not expect was that admission also required them to tolerate the ridicule of their faith and guilt by association with its wildest and most violent followers in the Middle East. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be variously interpreted and used for bloodthirsty ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons.
Ed Morrisey makes a point about editorial cartoons.
Editorial cartoons exist to challenge political thought and expose hypocrisy. Among religions, Islam should be the least protected from this form of speech, as it insists on involving itself in temporal political matters wherever it is practiced. Indeed, it insists on dictating political and legal matters, usually in the most extreme terms, and it uses the life of Mohammed as its claim on political and legal supremacy. Christianity hasn't taken that position in centuries, focusing on the spiritual and individual rather than group diktat. Judaism hasn't had the means to develop that kind of theocratic position for over two millenia until the establishment of Israel, and even then the Chosen have chosen a liberal democracy for themselves rather than rule by the high-priest descendants of Aaron.
Indeed. And the ipso facto thing about this is that Islam want to assert their religious ideology across into the legal, political, and freedom of expression boundaries. Simon Jenkins is wrong to suggest that censorship issue wasn't the problem. It is. That's why those cartoons were printed. With the more extremist Muslim communities who want to extend their ideology deeply into the "freedom of expression" concept by limiting it severely in a country not of their own. This is not about entering blantantly into people's home and not knowing their culture or customs. Or handle or touch incorrectly their Korans. It's about the right to freedom of expression, even if it may offend some people. Just like Michelle Malkin said,
The difference between Us and Them: No one's proclaiming an International Day of Anger and issuing fatwahs over this odious piece of "art." No one's taking up arms, raiding the art museum, or kidnapping the artist. No one's going to blow himself up in protest. Yes, it's insulting. Yes, it's offensive. But it's a picture. Just aSimon Jenkins, you are incorrect to say that cartoons threaten free speech. Rather it is that the Islamic community has threatened free speech through intimidation, coercion, force and the threatening the lives of those who have an unpopular opinion.
picture.
Copenhagen - A storm of protests and consumer boycotts in the Middle East against Denmark suggest that opponents of freedom of expression "have won", said the editor of a newspaper that published controversial caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed in a report published on Wednesday.
Jyllands-Posten chief editor Carsten Juste said: "They have won. That is the sad fact. I guess that during the next generation no one in Denmark will draw the Prophet Mohammed."
Asked if he regretted last September's publication that had angered many Muslims, Juste said: "If we had known it would have led to boycotts and that Danish lives would be threatened, as we have seen, then the answer is no.
"That would not have been responsible. The costs were simply too high."
Maybe Christians ought to do their own violent complaining over the psychedelic image of Jesus Christ in Denmark? Like here? Or elsewhere here?
Next step? Muslim's gradual control over Denmark's government. Their first step was silencing freedom of expression through fear and intimidation. A short history as reminder, even some video clips, too:
1989: Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini calls on Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy in his book The Satanic Verses
2002: Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel's article about Prophet and Miss World contestants sparks deadly riots
2004: Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh killed after release of his documentary about violence against Muslim women
2005: London's Tate Britain museum cancels plans to display sculpture by John Latham for fear of offending Muslims after July bombings
Which European country will go down first with Muslims taking over?
|