Hugh Hewitt Nails It
I’ve been a little chagrined at the eagerness with which the cause of the Danish cartoonists has been embraced, and I’ve tried to vocalize that, along with a few others on the right side of the aisle. As is often the case, though, someone else has crystallized my sentiments almost exactly, and more persuasively:
The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers. Of course each of them had the absolute right to publish their screed, and the Dutch (and now Norwegian) governments must reply to demands that these papers be punished with a steely refusal to be dictated to as to their culture of free expression and the protection of the vulgar and the stupid.
But don’t cheer the vulgar and the stupid.
There are hundreds of thousands of American troops deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe among Muslim peoples who they are trying to befriend. The jihadists like nothing more than evidence that these troops represent a West intent on a new crusade and a new domination of Muslims. Idiot cartoonists make our troops’ jobs more difficult, and the jihadists’ mission easier.
We rightly condemn and must continue to condemn every anti-Semitic outburst from the president of Iran and every anti-Semitic cartoon published in the hate press of the Middle East. Those condemnations loose some of their force among some of the world if we rush to defend those cartoons that can objectively be seen as anti-Muslim.
Just so…
UPDATE 2:03 p.m.More from AJ on the subject here…
he’s right, you can’t have it both ways.
First, the distinction between governments tolerating private expression even when it’s offensive and governments producing expression that is offensive may be a difficult one to convey to the populace in countries like Iran and Egypt where there is no free speech or private media, but it’s a distinction worth conveying — if only so that people in Iran and Egypt might begin to wonder why they don’t have private media of their own.
Second, having seen the cartoons, I have trouble believing that serious people are violently offended by them, but having now read (via Michelle Malkin) about the cartoons which have been shown and described to crowds throughout the Islamic world, I’m no longer so surprised about the outrage. Islamic groups in Denmark made up three truly offensive cartoons and told the world that the paper in Denmark had published them.
Certainly, if a paper in Denmark had in fact published anything remotely resembling these (one depicts Mohammed as a pedophile, another depicts a muslim man being sodomized by a dog as he kneels in prayer in a mosque) the entire debate would be quite different.
Could this be yet another example (only marginally more extreme than some between the left and the right in today’s U.S.) of people passionately arguing when in fact they are talking about two entirely separate things?
clint, now do you understand why i was offened?
Well, as usual, all your points are excellent, Clint, but still – my understanding is the very visual representation of Muhammed is verboten for Muslims, and the right to intentionally inflame a group we are trying to win over certainly exists, but so does my right to fill a bucket with red ants and stick my head in it.
I won’t be doing either, intentionally, anytime soon…I just have a hard time understanding why this, of all things, has people lining up to be heard, when there are so many more important things happening…it’s truly, bizarrely out of control, and reminds me a bit of the Terry Schiavo thing…everybody screaming bloody murder, then when it’s over going – ummm, okay, that was maybe a little overblown…
But yes, Clint, I think there are a lot of issues rolled up under this one event, and people are in fact talking past each other because they perceive the main issue differently, or at least choose to emphasize different aspects of the problem…
let’s face it mark, if there is talk about crazy muslim gunmen, the press and the public will eat it up. who cares about Alito, abortion rights, helping people in need. “The muslims are coming to get me, again?”
I agree with you Clint–this issue is being exploited 6 ways from Sunday. For example, I for one think it’s no coincidence the cartoons inflamed the muslim world this week as the IAEA meets after being ignored for months.
Hold Up Michelle
I really admire Michelle Malkin. She has graced this site with many an appreciated link. And I know she puts up with a lot of garbage from the leftward fever swamps.
Which is why it pains me to say how disappointed I am with her latest post. From …
Free speech all around
I haven’t jumped into the fray on the Muslim cartoon brouhaha, the main reason to see what others were saying, and second, it’s just not my cup of tea.
AE-
I’m also not sure what to make of the fact (thanks to Owen for bringing this to my attention) that it was Fatah gunmen doing the intimidating and kidnapping in Gaza. Perhaps they are trying to get back in touch with the base that rejected them at the polls? If Hamas and Fatah are going to take turns playing good-militant-bad-militant, this doesn’t bode well for Palestine.
Penelope-
I’m not sure. Are you saying you were offended by the deeply offensive cartoons that Danish Muslims drew themselves and then claimed were put out by the Danish newspaper? If so, I understand your offense — but you need to realize that it’s not the Danish paper that you should be offended with.
Mark-
Your red ants analogy is well taken — there are far too many people willing to stir things up in order to get attention. But I think this has to be seen as part of a continuing narrative going on in northern Europe at the moment between muslim immigrants and European natives. Put this in the context of the sensational murder of a filmmaker for offending muslims, continuing death threats against politicians, writers, journalists and filmmakers, and actual legislative debates about passing laws making it a crime to say or write things offensive to muslims.
In the context of legislative debate in the nearby British Parliament on a new law to ban speech deemed offensive to muslims, how can it possibly be beyond the pale to publish a political cartoon mocking the tendency of the muslim community to demand censorship? Yes, it was a stunt. Yes, it was intended to provoke an offended reaction — but a reaction that’s very relevant to an ongoing political debate in Europe.
That context makes all the difference. This is more akin to burning an American flag at a protest against the Flag Burning Amendment (should that ever come up for serious debate again) than to burning an American flag as an expression of hatred for America.
The Mohammad Cartoons
The Commisar has put out a call for bloggers to post the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad that have Muslims worldwide kind of ticked.
I’ve been slow to the party on this one, but not because I disagree about free speech. Certainly it is …
The dozen or so cartoons I saw weren’t obviously offensive other than, as is frequently asserted, that any depictions of Mohammed (PUB) are verboten. That is far from clear however. Certainly you will find many such depictions, some currently produced for street sale in Tehran so we might say that Wahhabbists proscribe that but “Islam”, at large and indubitably, does not. Well, the point though is free speech. If the offended parties want to boycott that is their right as much as it is ours to bend our shopping habits for any reason or no reason. Violence and the threats of violence are not anyone’s right however. No government that intends to survive to the sunrise can give the powers of sovereignty over to mobs in the street. This is how mobs in the street become governments. The content of the cartoons is quite immaterial for this question. And as far as I can tell, that is the Big Picture issue.
megapotamus, agreed…the principle is fine, but like Hugh said, the delight some are taking in the whole exercise is quite unseemly…
Clint, good point about the context with the Muslim/European thing we’ve seen so recently in France, for example…
Just because you can say anything you want doesn’t mean you ought to.
But I do have to say that it strikes me as childish and backward that a reaction to these CARTOONS is to randomly fire off guns, riot, break into buildings, and take hostages.
There are hundreds of thousands of American troops deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe among Muslim peoples who they are trying to befriend.
Wow, we sure have a funny way of making friends.
Look, I realize that we have a ways to go in Iraq and that this kind of publicity does not help. But do stories like Abu Ghraib, comments by Tancredo about bombing Mecca, etc. really help either? Our ultimate goal is to stop (Islamic) terrorism, which will have to be done physically (Afghanistan/Iraq) and emotionally (President Bush visiting a mosque soon after 9/11 comes to mind.) The problem is we seem to be going one step forward and two steps back all the time. Afghanistan was one giant step forward to me, and we can argue on and on about whether Iraq is a step forward or backward.
One further thought: If these cartoons have hurt our image in the minds of Muslims, so to have the actions of Islamic demonstrators carrying signs about how the EU’s 911 is coming. Making non-hostile denunciations of the cartoons would have seemed the better way to respond and show which side has class. Instead, their actions have confirmed the depiction of the cartoons.
It’s been reported that there are hoax cartoons being spread throughout the Middle-East that are truly revolting. And that these fake cartoons were originally drawn by Danish Muslim provocateurs.
This will end badly.
Fred-
I wish that fact were being more widely reported. It has the potential to defuse much of this.