Centerfield

Thanks for posting on this topic. The Danish newspaper which published the original cartoons has been forced to apologize. The Brussels Journal blog which has led the reporting of this attack on free speech is now receiving threats. Given the state of free speech in Europe as evidenced by the Italian "prove Christ existed" case, I expect Brussels Journal to be forced to remove the cartoons and their reporting. To guard against that possibility, I have reposted the cartoons and the Brussels Journal reporting thread on my blog. I urge all bloggers who care about free speech to do the same. See Farenheit 451 Alert

The article says this:

Some Muslims, who deem images of prophets disrespectful and caricatures blasphemous, have reacted angrily, threatening Danes, calling for goods boycotts and demanding an apology.

Some muslims. What about other muslims? Are any of the other muslims talking about the importance to modern democracy of tolerating free that you don't agree with, and of the superior efficacy of countering it with MORE free speech instead of threats of violence?

Controversies such as this MUST be teaching opportunities if we are ever to come to any sort of viable truce. That's what freedom of speech is..it's democracy's truce that draws a line allowing people to speak as they wish and to resolve differences according to that rule of law, and not via violence.

IMO, the media should hold itself responsible for helping foster such teaching opportunities. They need to add some go-to modern muslims to the host of voices, not just report on what attention-seeking nutjobs are saying.

If you were a Muslim, would you want to stick your head above the wall at risk of being killed by your co-religionists for being insufficiently zealous? Look at Salman Rushdie.

I certainly agree that Muslims as a whole need to step up to the plate and beginning really demonstrating their active disapproval and disavowal of the radicals, and the media certainly needs to do a better job of reporting same. Sadly, calm and rational voices do not sell newspapers and attract TV viewers. But we all have a responsibility to continue attacking those who believe in and practice the rule of violence and thuggery rather than the rule of law, openness, and freedom.

I wonder when Ed Asner and the Hollywood left will start complaining about this threat to free speech. Or Michael Moore? My guess? Never. (The reason I specifically mention Ed Asner is that he is a classic Hollywood leftist and blurbed a book describing the history of repression of speech in America. My guess is he won't touch this.)

Much of the tolerance from the left of radical Islamist attacks on free speech IN THE WEST stems, I think, from a recrudescence of "third-world romanticism" in which anything the third world does that is anti-western is ok because of our history of oppression. Thus, you have nit wits like Harry Belafonte making common cause with proto-dictator Hugo Chavez. In other words, if you don't like Bush, you're ok in my book even if you do little things like eviscerate Venezuelan democracy. Oh well!

Of course, the left did defend Salman Rushdie--after all, he was one of their own (ie, a leftist intellectual that doesn't particularly like the United States) and he wasn't a cause celebre of the conservatives. So that made it ok.

After 9/11, Michael Walzer, a liberal/leftist talked about the possibility of a "decent left" in view of the leftist apologists for for Al Quaida. We are still waiting, I'm afraid.

Don't even get me started on the relatively deafening silence when Dutch filmaker Theo Van Gogh was assassinated by a muslim extremist for his "against islam" film. It's beyond me how that didn't become a cause celebre, but Mumia Abdul Jamal (sp?) did.

The former is the sort of thing that lead me to wonder "if the light bulb didn't go on this time, will it ever?"

And yeah, I know that lots of people bemoaned the Van Gogh incident. I'm not trying to make a broad brushed smear against all liberals. I'm just saying that this incident truly seems like one where there's really no good reason for the left not to rise up loudly as one.

I am frankly dumbfounded that artists would not be eager to speak in one voice about the utter non-negotiability of a zero tolerance policy. It seems a shame some would insist on seeing a downside.

If not for our dependence on the damn oil, this is the sort of stuff that makes me want to build a BIG FREAKIN WALL around the entire middle east and let everyone who wants to remain on the other side of it live in thier self-impossed 7th century barabarism..... although by saying that I realize I do an extreme diservice to the people of the 7th century .....most of whom were a good deal more civilized then these yahoo's!

The cynical side of me wants to say that the Hollywood left rails against President Bush but remains silent about the abuses of radical Islam because they know that neither the President nor conservatives will actually even target them for audits or "domestic spying", much less stab them, shoot them, or blow them up. It's very easy to attack those you know won't fight back with anything other than words.

It's getting worse. There are widespread boycotts and even violence against all things and people Danish throughout the Middle East. The socialists in Denmark and a prominent capitalist there (a food company losing half a billion in Middle East sales) appear perfectly willing to sell out freedom of speech in return for being inoffensive to those prone to violence. So far the Dutch government has done the right thing, saying it finds the images offensive but can do nothing because of freedom of speech.

It does help demonstrate that the radical Islamists hate us because of our core values (freedom of speech, equality of religions under the law, women's rights), not just because of Palestine or our military presence in that region.

Danish cartoons published in an independant newspaper cause a campaign to boycott all Danish products and murder Danes and Norwegians?

The U.S. invades Afghanistan, Iraq, bombs Pakistan, ect. and no boycott?

is this a case of picking only battles you think you can win? What am I missing?

Michelle Malkin has reproduced the offending cartoons on her website.

Here is some historical background on this issue.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

"It does help demonstrate that the radical Islamists hate us because of our core values (freedom of speech, equality of religions under the law, women's rights), not just because of Palestine or our military presence in that region."

Pat,

I agree with you to the extent that radical Islam is a danger to liberal values and should be seen as such. It's not JUST our policy--radical Islamists are essentially against modernity.

But I think you have to qualify this. I don't think our values per se are an independent cause of attacks like this. It's a perception that we are attacking Islam. For the most part, I think they are mostly indifferent to our values except when they seem (in their deluded mind) to be attacking Islam. And, in their mind, our policy contributes to their belief that Islam is under siege. I'm not saying it's rational, but they see a west that they think is attacking them. They aren't attacking free speech per se, just against things they find offensive against Islam. They might argue, we don't give a damn what you say or do about other things, just don't insult our religion.

Marc,

I've thought about this at length. Over and over. So far, every time I do, when push comes to shove there are a series of basic core conflicts. Many of our core beliefs, including equal rights and discrimination forbidden on the basis of gender, ethnicity, or religion, and free speech, really ARE against Islam, or at least the version radical islamists are selling.

In other words, I think our values per se ARE ultimately a cause of violent Islamic resistance. We believe in free speech. Now if you are a muslim, you don't IMO get to say I believe in all free speech except that which says bad things about religion. Such statements are, quite frankly, proof that the speaker doesn't understand what free speech is. I'd argue speech codes such as the ones in Europe and even being instituted on American college campuses, are proof of the same fundamental lack of understanding of free speech.

IMO there truly IS a basic conflict, and we can't reason it away by talking and exploring perspectives. When push comes to shove, it's there, and it's visible from most every perspective, even if it's more clearly visible from some than others.

Islam, should be eradicated from the face of earth for the survival of humanity. mohd was a rapist and a terrorist. Islam is terrorism.