Like the appeasement of the 1930s, we are in the great age now of ethical retrenchment. So much has been lost even since 1960; then the very idea that a Dutch cartoonist whose work had offended radical Muslims would be in hiding for fear of his life would have been dismissed as fanciful.
Insidiously, the censorship only accelerates. It is dressed up in multicultural gobbledygook about hurtfulness and insensitivity, when the real issue is whether we in the West are going to be blown up or beheaded if we dare come out and support the right of an artist or newspaper to be occasionally crass.
In the post-Osama bin Laden and suicide-belt world of our own, we shudder at these fanatical riots, convincing ourselves that perhaps the Salman Rushdies, Theo Van Goghs, and Danish cartoonists of the world had it coming. All the while, we think to ourselves about the fact that we do not threaten to kill Muslims when they promulgate daily streams of hate and racism in sermons and papers, and much less would we go about promising death to the creator of "Piss Christ" or the Da Vinci Code. How ironic that we now find politically-correct Westerners — those who formerly claimed they would defend to the last the right of an Andres Serrano or Dan Brown to offend Christians — turning on the far milder artists who rile Muslims.
The radical Islamists are our generation's book burners who search for secular Galileos and Newtons. They are the new Nazi censors who sniff out anything favorable to the Jews. These fundamentalists are akin to the Soviet commissars who once decreed all art must serve political struggle — or else.
If we give in to these 8th-century clerics, shortly we will be living in an 8th century ourselves, where we may say, hear, and do nothing that might offend a fundamentalist Muslim — and, to assuage our treachery to freedom and liberalism, we'll always be equipped with the new rationale of multiculturalism and cultural equivalence which so poorly cloaks our abject fear.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Victor Davis Hanson on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
From National Review Online:
Mark Steyn v. Hugh Hewitt on Danish Cartoon Crisis
Hugh Hewitt had Mark Steyn on his radio show to talk about the Danish Cartoon crisis:
HH: ...Mark Steyn, now let's turn to the Danish cartoons. Hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims turned out in Beirut today to protest the cartoons. The head of Hezbollah told George Bush to shut up over Syria and Iran fueling protests. And in Gaza, a quaint little story of entrepreneur Ahmed Abu Daya, who has laid in a hundred hard to find Danish and Norwegian flags for sale to flag burners.
MS: Yeah.
HH: What's going on?
MS: Well in a sense, that sums up the economic energy in the Muslim world, that they're actually great for...if you want to start a flag business for people to burn flags, that's a viable business in the Muslim world. Not a lot of other things are. That's one of the problems. You know, I disagree with the line you've taken on this, Hugh, and I do accept that in the simple politics of it, there's something actually quite useful in the United States detaching itself from Europe's position. But from Europe's point of view, the problem is that the basic narrative here in all these stories, the French riots, the murder of the Dutch filmmaker, the banning of Pooh and Piglet mugs in English municipal government offices, all these little nothing stories all basically derive their energy from the same point, that the fact that the Europeans are weak and elderly and fading, and their Muslims populations are young and surging. And in all these clashes, they're basically putting down markers for the way things are going to be the day after tomorrow, in the way that if you're a new owner, you may buy a house and have the kitchen remodeled before moving in. I mean, a lot of the things they're putting in place now, the Muslims are demanding, the Muslim lobby groups are demanding. They're basically putting in place the remodeled kitchen before they move in and take over.
HH: So I've not persuaded you with my analogy to Churchill's treatment of Franco during the War, that we've got to worry about Pakistan's stability, we don't really want Danish newspaper editors making these calls for the Pentagon. We would...I want our government to engage this world and these fanatics on their terms and their timing, not the timing of Danish out of touch cultural editors, which is what this all began with.
MS: Well, I wouldn't actually call those guys out of touch, because in some ways, they're living with far...in a far worse situation than people are in parts of the Muslim world. And again, I would slightly disagree with you there, because I think Muslims in the Muslim world are actually far more culturally reformable than Muslims in Europe are, because they're living in relatively homogenous societies that can be shifted culturally in significant ways. The problem in Europe is that Muslims feel alienated, because they regard Western culture as an abomination, it's all around them. They regard them as soft, decadent, narcissist fornicators and sodomites, and they loathe the society they're living in. And I think in a sense, that's a much more problematic thing. You know, whether there...I think there are moderate Muslims in Jordan. Whether there are moderate Muslims in the Netherlands is a much more problematic question.
HH: You know, I asked Dennis Prager this week. I don't know if you had a chance to read that interview with Prager, Medved and Joe Carter.
MS: Yeah, that was a great show, actually.
HH: Well, I thought so, too, but I was a little stunned when Dennis said he thought 20% of the Muslim world was radicalized, and that it would go to more than 50%. Do you agree with those numbers?
MS: Well, I think the thing is you have to distinguish between...the proportion of Muslims who are prepared to fly planes into skyscrapers is incredibly small. But when you take polls...they took a poll in Britain this week of British Muslims, and basically found that 2/5ths of British Muslims regard Jewish civilians as legitimate targets. Now that provides a huge comfort zone for Muslim terrorists to operate in.
HH: Yes.
MS: It means that they can go and set up in Manchester or Birmingham or Rotterdam or Copenhagen or Buffalo or Seattle, knowing that within those communities, there's a very huge comfort zone for them to be able to operate in. And in that sense, I think Dennis may be, in fact, underestimating the number a little.
HH: Now what do you make, though, of hundreds of thousands of Hezbollah followers in Lebanon? Is this conflict unavoidable with Hezbollah?
MS: Well, I think that is part of something that's slightly more calculated. Spontaneous demonstrations don't erupt in that part of the world.
HH: That's right.
MS: They're basically as stage managed as the opening ceremony at the Moscow Olympics. And what is happening is that Iran is putting pressure, because there's this parallel situation going on with Iran's nuclear program being referred to the U.N. Security Council, and Iran is basically calling some of its client groups out into the streets to remind some of the weaker members of that Security Council that in fact, if they want a clash of civilizations, bring it on, baby. That's the message these groups are making.
Church of England Apologizes for Slave Trade
From This 'n That:
It voted unanimously to apologise to the descendents of the slaves after an emotional debate in which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, urged the Church to share the "shame and sinfulness of our predecessors".
The Church's missionary arm, the Society for the Propagation of the Faith in Foreign Parts, owned the Codrington plantation in Barbados and slaves had the word "Society" branded on their chests with red-hot irons.
The Synod was told that the society's governing body included archbishops of Canterbury. Bishops of London and archbishops of York were involved in its management.
Islamic Jihad Demonstrates in Jerusalem
Haaretz reports:
In Jerusalem, about 2,000 women, young boys and older men chanted "Bin Laden, strike again" as they marched around the Dome of the Rock on the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, trampling a homemade Danish flag.
Putin Hoisting Bush By "Democracy" Petard
RIA Novosti Russian news agency reports that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is using "democracy" against President Bush--and inviting Hamas leaders to Moscow for consultation:
Russians are still angry over what they see as Western support for Chechen Islamist extremists--whom Russians believe are tied to Al Qaeda--support justified by calls for "self-determination." Likewise, Russians are angry about Western support for Islamic movements in the former Yugoslavia, and in the former Soviet Republics. No doubt, feeling that turnabout is fair play, the Russians have decided that two can play the "democracy" game. Hamas's victory gives Russia the opportunity to hassle President Bush. Putin can cause problems for the US, in the same way that Russians believe the US has been causing problems for Russia. And with Russian support for Syria, Venezuela, and now Hamas, Putin will be in a stronger position to get the West to back off any further moves to destablize Russia.
It has long been said that Russians play chess while Americans play poker. But it seems that the Hamas victory is an Ace in Putin's poker hand, which he intends to play with a poker face against President Bush.
One might also remember that the USSR was instrumental in the establishment of the PLO in the first place--as well as in the establishment of the State of Israel, funnelling arms through Czechoslovakia to the Jewish State in 1948. By embracing Hamas, Putin is re-inforcing Russia's role as a "player" in the Middle East, a Great Power whose national interests can no longer be ignored.
This is a natural consequence of an American two-track policy which encourages confrontation with Russia, rather than full partnership in the war on terror. Bush's mistakes have now given Putin leverage to veto any American initiatives in the Middle East. Which means that unless Bush makes nice to Putin, Ehud Olmert's Israeli government may need to shift its focus to the Kremlin--and Russia may find that its historical quest for a "warm water port" ends when the Russian Navy is based in Haifa...
"Today, [we] must recognize that Hamas came to power via legitimate, democratic elections in the Palestinian National Authority, which is why we must respect the choice of the Palestinian people," Putin said at a news conference in Madrid, where he is on official business.This can't be a surprise to US officials, despite public claims to the contrary. Russians see the US as trying to weaken Russia, using "democracy" as a tool.
Russians are still angry over what they see as Western support for Chechen Islamist extremists--whom Russians believe are tied to Al Qaeda--support justified by calls for "self-determination." Likewise, Russians are angry about Western support for Islamic movements in the former Yugoslavia, and in the former Soviet Republics. No doubt, feeling that turnabout is fair play, the Russians have decided that two can play the "democracy" game. Hamas's victory gives Russia the opportunity to hassle President Bush. Putin can cause problems for the US, in the same way that Russians believe the US has been causing problems for Russia. And with Russian support for Syria, Venezuela, and now Hamas, Putin will be in a stronger position to get the West to back off any further moves to destablize Russia.
It has long been said that Russians play chess while Americans play poker. But it seems that the Hamas victory is an Ace in Putin's poker hand, which he intends to play with a poker face against President Bush.
One might also remember that the USSR was instrumental in the establishment of the PLO in the first place--as well as in the establishment of the State of Israel, funnelling arms through Czechoslovakia to the Jewish State in 1948. By embracing Hamas, Putin is re-inforcing Russia's role as a "player" in the Middle East, a Great Power whose national interests can no longer be ignored.
This is a natural consequence of an American two-track policy which encourages confrontation with Russia, rather than full partnership in the war on terror. Bush's mistakes have now given Putin leverage to veto any American initiatives in the Middle East. Which means that unless Bush makes nice to Putin, Ehud Olmert's Israeli government may need to shift its focus to the Kremlin--and Russia may find that its historical quest for a "warm water port" ends when the Russian Navy is based in Haifa...
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Reflections on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
Here are some reasons I find the Danish Cartoon crisis interesting:1. Denmark is a democracy.
Which means that any extremist rage or terrorist acts against Denmark can't be explained as a result of Denmark's autocratic rulers, secret police, or torture chambers.
2. Denmark is rich.
Again, poverty can't be the explanation for the movement we have seen. People actually immigrate to Denmark to find work. Those who can't work enjoy social benefits among the most generous in the world.
3. Denmark is peaceful.
Although Danish troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq, Denmark has been among the least warlike nations in recent history.
4. Denmark respects human rights.
Once more, Denmark is a world leader in this field.
5. Denmark is honest.
Every year, Scandanavian countries rank among the top in the world, in every anti-corruption index. So, this can't be seen as a protest against a corrupt government, either.
All of these facts make Denmark an interesting test case for the various theories on how to combat terrorism. For Denmark is clearly a target of terror. The Danish Cartoon crisis is a terrorist campaign, complete with riots, arson, mobs, and threats to bring a 9/11 to Denmark. Hizb-ut-Tahrir declared a jihad against Denmark even before the cxartoons were published.
My own belief is that the Danish case reveals the bankruptcy of President Bush's anti-terror strategy, based on false premises of "democracy deficit", corruption, poverty, and so forth. Likewise, it counteracts liberal theories that multi-culturalism and attempts at understanding the "Other" will bring about a reduction in tensions.
What the Danish case shows is that there is no alternative but to fight against Islamist extremists and fanatics, wherever they may be living--including Saudi Arabia. And to focus on this fight, in words spoken by former President Bill Clinton in relation to the US economy, "like a laser beam."
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan says:
I have to say I am ashamed that the West has not been more forthright in defending the Danes. That idiots like John Kerry and Bill Clinton would call standing up to Islamist intimidation bigotry appalls me. The West has a right to say that all its citizens have an inviolable right to free speech, and that all its female - and gay and Jewish - citizens have a right not to submit to medieval barbarism. Period.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali told the BBC:
Ms Hirsi Ali, speaking in Berlin, said that "today the open society is challenged by Islamism".
She added: "Within Islam exists a hardline Islamist movement that rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them."
Ms Hirsi Ali criticised European leaders for not standing by Denmark and urged politicians to stop appeasing fundamentalists.
Jill Carroll Still Alive...
In a new video, she said: "I am here. I am fine. Please just do whatever they want, give them whatever they want as quickly as possible."
Bush's Ironic Meeting with King Abdullah
(White House Photo by Eric Draper)
Writing in the International Herald Tribune, Mona Eltahawy takes President Bush to task for sitting next to King Abdullah while discussing the Danish Cartoons:
UPDATE: IMHO, The Bush administration's handling of this crisis has been so terrible that it poses a threat to American national security. It revealed a panicky administration that made public statements without even bothering to research the facts at issue. Any web-surfer who reads Michelle Malkin would know enough about what is going on to tell Bush one simple truth--the Danes were not irresponsible, the Danish press was not irresponsible, the Danish cartoonists were not irresponsible. Rather, the Danish imams, and their extremist supporters around the world who agitated for violence, were the irresponsible ones.
Which makes George Bush's statements on the Danish Cartoon crisis--"irresponsible."
Writing in the International Herald Tribune, Mona Eltahawy takes President Bush to task for sitting next to King Abdullah while discussing the Danish Cartoons:Two Jordanian editors and a Yemeni editor who dared to publish some of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad are under arrest, accused of insulting religion under their countries' press and publication laws. For them, it was not so much an issue of joining the chorus of European and then international newspapers that sang in defense of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons in September. Rather, it was a chance to challenge state-sanctioned religious rules....
...It is ironic that President George W. Bush is asking these same leaders to help calm Muslim anger when they were so instrumental in inflaming it in the first place. It is particularly telling that he made this call as he stood with King Abdullah of Jordan, while making no mention of the jailed editors [who published the cartoons in Arab countries].
Perhaps the ultimate double standard, though, is the repeated calls from Muslim dictators that the freedom of expression must be exercised with responsibility. Why isn't anyone telling them that an equally healthy dose of responsibility must accompany the enormous power they wield?
I am a Muslim who fully supports Jyllands-Posten's right to publish the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, as I defend the rights of Muslims to be offended. But I find the daily human rights violations by our dictators to be more offensive to the memory of the prophet's life than a few cartoons ever could be.
UPDATE: IMHO, The Bush administration's handling of this crisis has been so terrible that it poses a threat to American national security. It revealed a panicky administration that made public statements without even bothering to research the facts at issue. Any web-surfer who reads Michelle Malkin would know enough about what is going on to tell Bush one simple truth--the Danes were not irresponsible, the Danish press was not irresponsible, the Danish cartoonists were not irresponsible. Rather, the Danish imams, and their extremist supporters around the world who agitated for violence, were the irresponsible ones.
Which makes George Bush's statements on the Danish Cartoon crisis--"irresponsible."
Telegraph: Saudis Behind Danish Cartoon Crisis
Despite Condoleezza Rice's blaming Iran and Syria, Anton LaGuardia says Saudi Arabian agitation turned the publications of 12 Danish cartoons into an international crisis:
The uproar over the Danish cartoons has some intriguing parallels with the furious dispute over Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses almost exactly 17 years ago.
Then, as now, it took several months for isolated protests over the affront to the Prophet Mohammed to explode into an international fireball involving Islamic indignation, western outrage, death threats - and a good deal of political manipulation.
In 1989 it was Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini who sued a fatwa sentencing Salman Rushdie to death. Today it is Saudi Arabia, Iran’s rival for influence in the Islamic world, that has given force to the campaign against the Danish cartoons.
In the space of a few days at the end of January, Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador to Copenhagen, its top religious leader called for the Danish government to punish the Jyllands-Posten for the “ugly crime” and Saudi religious leaders instigated a boycott of Danish goods – all publicised by Saudi newspapers and satellite television stations...
...Mr Abu Laban himself appears to concede the point when he admits that Saudi-owned satellite stations such as al-Majd and Iqra had a "big influence" in fomenting the trade boycott.
Ann Coulter on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
Ann Coulter (who was fired from National Review after an "offensive" column) discusses the meaning of the Danish cartoons:One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.
In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.
Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.
The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" — which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.
The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad — though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.
Bush Blows It--Again...
Watching President with King Abdullah on the TV news last night, spouting an "evenhanded" line regarding the Danish Cartoon crisis--about how violence must stop but that freedom also carries responsibility--someone I know turned to me and said: So, the President is on the side of the protesters?
That's how it looked to me, too--despite today's Washington Post story claiming there has been a shift in the White House position.
Today's page one story had a quote from an unnamed State Department source who said that Kurtis Cooper's first response, to condemn the cartoons outright, was motivated by a belief that it would help to calm things down.
First, the Post should find out who made that call, then publish the name of the person responsible--Karen Hughes perhaps?
Since it didn't calm things down, as appeasement breeds agression (one of the few iron laws of international relations), the person who designed the US response to the Danish Cartoon crisis should then be asked to resign at once. Enough damage has been done.
Saying nothing would have been better than what the US has done so far. The US doesn't have to have an opinion on cartoons published in obscure regional Danish newspapers. If Bush couldn't bring himself to side with Denmark, he could have stayed out of it.
But to kowtow, as his administration has done, is just plain demoralizing. Every sign of weakness fans the flames of fanaticism. And the Bush administration looks very weak indeed--Bush actually sounded scared to me, his voice was trembling in the news clip with Abdullah.
Any rational person would ask: Why King Abdullah? What does Jordan have to do with this story? Why not the Danish ambassador?
Oh, where o where o where is Rudy Giuliani when we need him?
That's how it looked to me, too--despite today's Washington Post story claiming there has been a shift in the White House position.
Today's page one story had a quote from an unnamed State Department source who said that Kurtis Cooper's first response, to condemn the cartoons outright, was motivated by a belief that it would help to calm things down.
Bush has made a calculated decision to focus on the violence in recent days, according to White House aides. The administration's initial reaction, delivered last Friday by the State Department, was to sharply criticize the drawings. "Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said at the time. Cooper was repeating talking points provided by higher-level officials when the controversy erupted. "We hoped it would be a calming influence," a State Department official said.Bad call, I'd say. Very bad.
First, the Post should find out who made that call, then publish the name of the person responsible--Karen Hughes perhaps?
Since it didn't calm things down, as appeasement breeds agression (one of the few iron laws of international relations), the person who designed the US response to the Danish Cartoon crisis should then be asked to resign at once. Enough damage has been done.
Saying nothing would have been better than what the US has done so far. The US doesn't have to have an opinion on cartoons published in obscure regional Danish newspapers. If Bush couldn't bring himself to side with Denmark, he could have stayed out of it.
But to kowtow, as his administration has done, is just plain demoralizing. Every sign of weakness fans the flames of fanaticism. And the Bush administration looks very weak indeed--Bush actually sounded scared to me, his voice was trembling in the news clip with Abdullah.
Any rational person would ask: Why King Abdullah? What does Jordan have to do with this story? Why not the Danish ambassador?
Oh, where o where o where is Rudy Giuliani when we need him?
Egyptian Newspaper Published Danish Cartoons
Egyptian Sandmonkey has the images of an Egyptian newspaper that published copies of the famous Danish cartoons in December--something the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe still refuse to do... which makes one think about some sort of variation on the cliche, "more Catholic than the Pope," to explain their editorial decisions. (ht lgf)Andrew Sullivan has this to say:
So we now discover that the hideously offensive and blasphemous cartoons - so blasphemous that CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, won't publish them ... were reprinted last October. In Egypt. On the front frigging page. No one rioted. No editor at Al Fager was threatened. So it's official: the Egyptian state media is less deferential to Islamists than the New York Times. So where were the riots in Cairo? This whole affair is a contrived, manufactured attempt by extremist Muslims to move the goal-posts on Western freedom. They're saying: we determine what you can and cannot print; and there's a difference between what Muslims can print and what infidels can print. And, so far, much of the West has gone along. In this, well-meaning American editors have been played for fools and cowards. Maybe if they'd covered the murders of von Gogh and Fortuyn more aggressively they'd have a better idea of what's going on; and stared down this intimidation. The whole business reminds me of the NYT's coverage of the Nazis in the 1930s. They didn't get the threat then. They don't get it now.
Bernard Henry-Levy on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
The Wall Street Journal published this essay by Bernard Henry-Levy online today:
And, faced with this triangulation in progress, faced with this formidable hate-and-death machine, faced with this "moral atomic bomb," we have no other solution than to counter with another triangle--a triangle of life and reason, which more than ever must unite the United States, Europe and Israel in a rejection of any clash of civilizations of the kind desired by the extremists of the Arab-Muslim world and by them alone.
The heart of this second triangle? First, the affirmation of principles. The affirmation of the press's right to the expression of idiocies of its choosing--rather than the acts of repentance that too many leaders have resorted to, and which merely encourages in the Arab street the false and counterproductive illusion that a democratic state may exert power over its press.
And second, in the same breath, the reaffirmation of our support for those enlightened moderate Muslims who know that the honor of Islam is far more insulted, and trampled under foot, when Iraqi terrorists bomb a mosque in Baghdad, when Pakistani jihadists decapitate Daniel Pearl in the name of God and film their crime, or when an Algerian fundamentalist emir disembowels, while reciting the Quran, an Algerian woman whose only crime was to have dared show her beautiful face. Moderate Muslims are alone these days, and in their solitude they more than ever need to be acknowledged and hailed.
Philadelphia Inquirer Publishes Danish Cartoon
Here's editor Amanda Bennett's explanation for breaking ranks with the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe:
On Saturday, February 4, The Inquirer published one of the cartoons originally commissioned for a Danish newspaper. These cartoons have become the subject of international protests, debates and, in some cases, violence.
At the heart of this debate are our journalistic values, and how we practice them day to day. To us, this was a moment for newspaper journalists to do what they are uniquely qualified to do in this country - to lay out all sides of the issue for a well-informed public to debate and discuss. The Inquirer published the image to inform our readers, not to inflame them. Before we published it, we interviewed a wide range of people, from Muslim theologians to experts in journalistic ethics. We considered the publication of the image in the same way we have previously considered publishing difficult or troubling images. Other such examples include the burned bodies of contractors hanging from a bridge in Fallujah, and artistic works that included disturbing Christian imagery.
We published the Danish cartoon as part of a rich offering of coverage on the whole issue. We not only covered the protests, we also examined the issues behind the protests. We have run stories on why Muslims might find the images offensive and on why the American media found this such a difficult choice. We plan further coverage on a variety of topics, including satire in the Middle East. We also have invited members of our local Muslim community to contribute pieces for our op-ed page.
This is what newspapers are in the business to do. We educate people, we inform them, we spark discussion. It is not only our profession, it is our obligation.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Rice Blames Iran and Syria for Danish Cartoon Violence
Today, at a press conference with Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, the American Secretary of State pointed fingers in a direction that supports the hypothesis that the Danish Cartoon crisis may be linked to the Iranian nuclear showdown (Syria now has a defense treaty with Iran):QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in the aftermath of the printing of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, there has been outrage around the world that we've all seen. The question is: Do you think this is spontaneous as it continues? If not, who is behind it? What group or what governments might be behind it?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me first say that this has been a difficult period. We are strong proponents of the freedom of the press. It is one of the most fundamental freedoms of democratic development. We also believe that with press freedom comes a certain responsibility. And the United States has been a place where there has been also freedom of religion and that means that people have to exist in the same body and to respect each other's religious traditions and respect each other's religious sensibilities and that is also very important.
Now, nothing justifies the violence that has broken out in which many innocent people have been injured. Nothing justifies the burning of diplomatic facilities or threats to diplomatic facilities around the world. This is a time when everyone should urge calm and should urge that there is an atmosphere of respect and understanding.
I think that there have been a lot of governments that have spoken out about this. Note, for instance, Afghanistan and Lebanon, very important comments even by the Ayatollah Sistani about this.
But yes, there are governments that have also used this opportunity to incite violence. I don't have any doubt that given the control of the Syrian Government in Syria, given the control of the Iranian Government, which, by the way, hasn't even hidden its hand in this, that Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it. All responsible people ought to say that there is no excuse for violence. We all need to respect each other's religions. We need to respect freedom of the press. But you know, again, with freedom of the press comes responsibility as well.
Al Qaeda Link in Danish Cartoon Crisis
Based on reports in the Danish media Brussels Journal charges three fake cartoons were made by Danish Imams, one of whom is linked to an Al Qaeda related publication, in order to incite violence (ht lfg & Michelle Malkin):
Denmark is being punished at the instigation of radical imams because twelve cartoonists have depicted Muhammad. However, these imams created their own three Muhammad images. They have even presented a French clown as being Muhammad. Because the twelve JP cartoonists are not Muslims, the Muslim blasphemy laws do not apply to them. But these laws do apply to the imams. Consequently, these imams deserve death. They – and no-one else – depicted the prophet as a pig – the highest imaginable insult in Islam.
In his letter of “apology” Jyllands-Posten editor Carsten Juste wrote:
“In our opinion the 12 cartoons were moderate and not intended to be insulting. They did not go against Danish laws, but have evidently offended many Muslims, for which we apologize. Meanwhile a couple of offending cartoons have circulated in the Muslim world which were never published in Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published if they had been offered to us. We would have dismissed them on the grounds that they breached our ethical limits.”
Indeed, the three cartoons breaching the paper’s ethical limits have been made by fanatical Muslim clerics themselves in order to set the world ablaze and provoke a religious war with the West.
Even under Western law the Danish radical imams belong in jail. Their hate crime must be punished. The imams are the hate preachers who are responsible for the destruction and the fatalities that resulted from their lies and their blasphemy. One of these lying imams is Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban. He works as a translator and distributor of an al-Qaeda related publication. [Editor's note: Here's the Al Qaeda link.]
Western papers and blogs that published the twelve cartoons were right to do so. If they had not published, no-one would have been able to ascertain that the pigsnout was not among them. If they had not published, the cheating, blasphemous imams would have got away with their lies. The public is served by information, never harmed by it. Let this be a lesson to the cowards of The Guardian, SBS, the BBC and the British and American mainstream media, who “out of respect” for Islam would have allowed blasphemous imams to get away with their gross insult of the prophet, with slander and libel, and with the violent acts which they instigated.
Danish Cartoons Reflect Anti-Muslim Europe
Writing in Ha'aretz, Yitzhak Laor says protests against Danish Cartoons are a reaction to European anti-Muslim prejudices:
The real context of the Danish cartoon is not the "war of civilizations," but rather the stubborn attempt by a great many elements to fan such a war. Okay, so the publication of the cartoon perhaps started a crisis in Denmark's relations with Muslim countries, but this publication is just one link in the manifestations of hostility toward the million of Muslims who live in Europe - most of whom were born there, educated there and speak one of its languages.
In the Europe of today it is very difficult to be a Muslim male with a beard and a skullcap, or a Muslim woman with a head covering and a long dress. It sometimes seems as though there are European elements - French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy is not exceptional, nor are the spokesmen of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the ruling party in Bavaria - who are seeking the right moment to expel tens of thousands of Muslims from the countries in which they live. One thing is clear: The neo-Nazis have long since ceased to be the only spokesmen of this racism. The interview granted by the Jewish Alain Finkielkraut to Dror Mishani in Haaretz was also, most disgracefully, a symptom of this fanning of the flames.
It appears as though Israeli newspapers have been too hasty in celebrating the news of the tension in relations with the Muslims. Perhaps they do not know what it means to be dark-skinned in Europe (not necessarily Arab) or to wear a beard and a skullcap, or to cover your head if you are a woman. And perhaps the opposite is the case, and in this rejoicing there is a kind of imaginary joining of the West: Perhaps only in this way we will remove from ourselves some "ancient shame" because of which we did not succeed in being part of the West.
It is too easy to ask another leading question: What would we have done had a Danish newspaper published an insulting drawing of Moses? This is a trivial question: Such a drawing is not possible in Western Europe today, because it is covering the hatred of Muslims with an increasing attack of philo-Semitism. Again and again they are writing and saying there, in Italian, Dutch, and Danish (what Britain is being so cautious about) that Islam is foreign to Europe, that in Christian Europe there have never been mosques, that there is a close connection between the Muslim religion and terror, that Muslim culture is fated to clash with Western culture, that Western culture is superior to any other culture, and in almost the same article or conversation they take pride in the ancient Jewish presence in Europe, and how much the Jews are missed, and they glory in the (empty) synagogues as part of the fabric of cultural life there, and of course they can lecture about the Jewish contribution to Western culture. How scary this "love of Israel" is for those who are familiar with the nature of the arguments about the Christian cultural purity of Europe.
And who among the Israelis who have spent considerable time there has not heard, at least once, the stupid compliment about the difference between us, the new Jews, and the Jews of other times. The Israeli rejoicing at the moment, which is fortifying the freedom of the Danish press, is not only not equipped with real memory, but also has been equipped for years now with something entirely different, a blend of hatred for religion and the East. In this respect, the reaction of the Conference of European Rabbis condemning the insult to the Muslim Prophet is encouraging, even if it has been late in coming and even if it has been too thin a voice.
Andrew Sullivan on Danish Cartoons and the American Media
"So, in refusing to publish the cartoons at issue, the American media are simply following the line not of Islam but of radical Islamists, who engineered this outbreak of violence in the first place."
Abu Hamza Linked to 7/7 London Blasts
The Hindustan Times reports:
The most significant revelation from the trial of the radical cleric Abu Hamza, is the finding of a direct link between him and the date of July 7 which four suicide bombers chose to cause carnage in tube trains and a double-decker bus.BTW The Washington Post really buried its Abu Hamza story on its inside pages today--below the fold. How come?
It was also revealed that an arsenal was found inside Finsbury Park mosque over which he presided when 150 police officers raided it. The weaponry was to be used for training terrorists.
It was also found that three of the suicide bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the four bombers, Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay, visited Finsbury Park where Hamza taught that Muslims were obliged to kill unbelievers to defend Islam.
He said the aim of jihad was to humiliate non-believers and convert them to Islam. "Now look at the suicide bombs. Does it fulfil all these purposes? Yes, all of them."
The link between Hamza and the bombers who killed 52 people last July raises a possible new explanation for the date and timing of the attacks. On the morning of July 7 -- the date chosen by bombers to strike -- Abu Hamza was in the dock in the Old Bailey and about to stand trial.
New Sisyphus Blasts Anti-Danish Conservative Bloggers
Here's what theretired US State Department official has to say about commentators like Hugh Hewitt:
Some American conservatives and commentators have focused in on the need to denounce the cartoons themselves since the ensuing controversy is not helpful to America's over-all goals in the War on Terror. After all, these conservatives argue, this controversy has just made our soldier's and diplomat's lives much, much more difficult in Iraq and Afghanistan and has needlessly complicated our alliances with countries like Turkey and Pakistan.
While I have a great deal of sympathy for the impulses that have produced this reaction, it must be said that, helpful or not, the controversy now exists in objective reality and choices must be made. While undeniably true that the U.S. would be making its job in the Middle East and elsewhere more difficult on the ground should it stand for principle, it is equally undeniably true that the only other alternative is to send the very dangerous message to our enemies that our liberties are negotiable.
In any case, defense of speech should never be equated by defense of the message. Even if one believe the Danish cartoons are horrifically offensive (they are not), one must stand up for the offensive speaker's absolute right to engage in legitimate political speech without hindrance, and certainly without subjecting oneself to a Muslim veto.
It is in this sense that all the Blogosphere talk about "helpfulness" misses the point: the controversy throws up a bevy of options, none of which are ideal from a strictly strategic point of view. This does not eliminate the need for us to respond in some meaningful way.
On of the leading proponents for the "this is not about free speech" school of thought, Hugh Hewitt, asks us to answer the question: Are we at war with Islam? Do we wish such a war?
Taking the second question first: obviously not. In fact, I fear such a war. I would do anything to avoid it short of surrender to Islam's demands.
As to the first question, I don't think so, not exactly, but it is regrettably something close to that.
I think it is beyond doubt that there exists a pan-Islamic school of fascist thought that has declared war on the West and that support for this line is quite high among the Muslim masses. Since they have declared war, and since their rationale for this war is Islam, we are, in a sense, at war with Islam. To paraphrase Trotksy's famous saying on the dialectic, "you may not be interested in an Islamic war, but Islamic war is interested in you."
I frankly do not find the significance in Jim Geraghty's dispatches from Turkey that Hugh assigns to them. Speaking as someone who has lived abroad in an anti-American atmosphere, I am very aware that it is possible for a population to be deeply anti-American and yet, at the same time, the vast majority of people are apolitical, nice to Americans in restaurants and want American visas. I suspect if one could go back in time to 1938 Munich one would also find lots of smiling, friendly Germans willing to take in an American traveller with great hospitality. The conflict is bigger than individuals, and lone Americans aren't seen in the same light as America-with-a-capital-A. None of which changes the facts that our respecitive civilizations stand for very different things and that these things are now in armed conflict.
What is Incitement?
After the Abu Hamza case, I wondered if American law has any provisions for prosecuting "incitement." Sure enough, it does, as I learned from this website about the Incitement Test.
In 1917, in a case related to the Russian Revolution, Masses Publishing v Patten, Judge Learned Hand wrote an opinion that "the government may prosecute words that are 'triggers to action' but not words that are 'keys of persuasion.'" In Brandenburg v Ohio, the Supreme Court expanded on this--in a ruling favorable to the Ku Klux Klan--holding that "the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce 'imminent lawless action' and which is likely to produce such action."
In 1917, in a case related to the Russian Revolution, Masses Publishing v Patten, Judge Learned Hand wrote an opinion that "the government may prosecute words that are 'triggers to action' but not words that are 'keys of persuasion.'" In Brandenburg v Ohio, the Supreme Court expanded on this--in a ruling favorable to the Ku Klux Klan--holding that "the First Amendment allows punishment only of subversive advocacy calculated to produce 'imminent lawless action' and which is likely to produce such action."
The Incitement Test (Brandenburg) The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.So, if speech is a trigger to imminent action--it is incitement, and may be banned.
Abu Hamza Conviction Raises MI5 Protection Questions
The Guardian suggests the convicted Imam of London's Finsbury Park Mosque may have had ties to MI5:
The conviction raises questions of why he was not prosecuted until many years after he had made his most inflammatory sermons and had established Finsbury Park mosque as a centre of Islamist extremism in Europe.
A senior French intelligence chief told the Guardian that for years Britain had failed to take action against him despite being given evidence that he had extensive involvement in terrorism. Former mosque worshippers say they told police about Abu Hamza's activities, including a meeting in the mosque to pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden.
A former MI5 agent who infiltrated the mosque says Abu Hamza was allowed to operate by the security services as long as he did not threaten Britain's national security. Both the agent and a close associate of Abu Hamza say the cleric was an unwitting informant on other extremist Muslims. It emerged that over a three-year period the cleric had met repeatedly with MI5 and Special Branch. A senior British counter-terrorism official said that a raid on the mosque in January 2003 recovered replica guns which had been used at "UK-based training camps". He added that "dozens" of terrorism investigations led back to Abu Hamza, who was "part of ... the global jihad. It would be a mistake to regard him as a buffoon".
Farid Ghadry: Strip Mecca from Saudis
In an interesting comment about the Danish Cartoon crisis to National Review, Farid Ghadry argues that stripping control of Mecca from the extremist Wahabis might be a step in the right direction. He proposes an international city, like the Vatican (ht Daniel Pipes):
The event that launched this worldwide protest by Muslims over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist was the pulling of the Saudi ambassador from Denmark, a mere four months after the printing. The effect will change the landscape for both Arab oil-producing countries and terrorism-sponsored states.
Oil-producing Saudi Arabia is also the guardian of the two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. With oil, Saudi Arabia is able to influence the West, and with its guardianship of these cities, it is able to control the movement of 1.3 billion Muslims. This centralization of power gives Saudi Arabia vast powers that are having an effect on civilizations across the globe.
The Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia, adhereing to a movement that originated in the center of the country, controls oil in the east and Mecca and Medina in the west. But even within their own borders, the Wahabis have a geographic Achilles' heel in the west of the country; and this is exacerbated when one considers Jordan, as well as the history of the Hashemite family (today's Jordan), which, up until the turn of the 20th century, controlled Mecca and Medina instead of the Saudis.
It is important for all Muslims that Mecca and Medina either be returned to the Hashemite family or be guarded by an international council elected by the 56 countries of the Organization of Islamic Conferences. The few leaders of 25 million Muslims should not control the fate of another 1.3 billion. Making Mecca and Media be for Muslims more like what the Vatican is for Catholics would go a long way toward giving all Muslims a say in their own affairs and charting a new direction for Islam.
Terrorist states will use Islam, as Syria did, to impose its will on the West. Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and many others are watching how Syria used the cartoons to launch an attack against Western assets and values. This is the beginning of what promises to be an unstoppable weapon of rogue states, used to inflict pain, through violence, on other civilizations.
Amir Taheri: Islam Permits Pictures of Mohammed
Amir Taheri says protesters against Danish cartoons are lying about Islam's prohibition on representation, citing examples from the history of Islamic art:The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.
The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous...
More on the Iran Nuclear-Danish Cartoon Crisis Connection
From Shrinkwrapped(ht Roger L. Simon):
At the same time, the Cartoon War is a diversionary tactic being used by the Iranians and the Syrians to keep European attention focused away from the Iranian Nuclear weapons program and the Syrian/Iraqi WMD. It is also a warning shot over the bow, letting the Europeans know that any move by Israel and/or America to deal with Syria (doubtful) or Iran (more likely) militarily will be met with violence in the streets of Europe. And, while there has been minimal mention of this in the MSM, Hezbollah on the northern Israeli frontier and Hamas, from Gaza and the West Bank, have been escalating their attacks against Israel in conjunction with their "spontaneous" riots against European embassies.
In some ways, this all looks like a high stakes game of chicken, with an explosive confrontation approaching quickly.
Michelle Malkin on Fox News and the Danish Cartoon Crisis
Michelle Malkin's not happy with Fox News' coverage:I appeared tonight on Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes for an all-too-brief segment on the Mohammed Cartoons. Before I drove to the Washington, D.C., studio, I stopped by a Kinko's store, printed out the cartoons, and pasted them onto a piece of poster board. I then used my short time on the airwaves to do what no one wants to do on American TV:
I tried to show viewers all 12 cartoons to give viewers the full context of the Jyllands-Posten's decision to publish the artwork.
Unfortunately, as I tried to walk through the content of the cartoons, the camera cut from my display to video of the Islamists' crazed, violent protests. As if we hadn't seen enough of that already.
What are the news networks and newspapers so afraid of? [Update: See the New York Press walkout for a rare show of guts and principle.]
Why do they persist in leaving viewers in a cloud of ignorance about this international controversy? Cherry-picking the most arguably inflammatory cartoon--the one of Muhammad and the bomb turban--and implying that it is representative of the rest of the artwork is not journalism.
That's journalistic malpractice.
And it's exactly what the radical Islamists are counting on the cowering MSM to do.
I had a nice chat with another FOX News personality before my segment. This person hadn't seen all the cartoons--but had already formed a firm opinion that the Jyllands-Posten was being unnecessarily provocative and insensitive.
Is it any wonder that millions of people are turning to the Internet to get to the truth?
***
There also wasn't enough time to address the other most important aspect of the Cartoon Jihad -- the fabrication of truly anti-Islam cartoons by Danish imams, who did precisely what the Jyllands-Posten is unfairly blamed for doing--that is, deliberately inciting Muslims to violence.
Anne Applebaum on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
In today's Washington Post, Anne Applebaum comments on the ramifications of the Danish Cartoon crisis. It's worth reading.
Herb Meyer: Attack Iran Now
The former Regan-era CIA official says Iran's government is a clear and present danger to America:
Most worrisome, while everyone in Washington is focusing on nuclear weapons, no one has uttered so much as a peep about the possibility that Iran may be developing chemical or biological weapons. These weapons are far less costly than nuclear weapons, and the technology required to develop them is more widely available. And since a cupful of anthrax or botulism is enough to kill 100,000 people, our ability to detect these weapons is – zilch. So why wouldn’t the mullahs in Teheran order the development of chemical and biological weapons? If they really do plan to wipe Israel – or us – off the map, these will do the job just as well as nukes. And if reports are true that Saddam Hussein had such weapons before the war and shipped them out to Syria and Iran before we attacked in 2003 – then the mullahs already have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
Simply put, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, combined with the murderous comments of that country’s president, is the political equivalent of a man running toward your children’s school holding a hand grenade and shouting “I hate kids. I welcome death.” The risk of taking time—to think, to talk, to analyze, to co-ordinate with other countries – is just too high. We know where Amadinejad and the mullahs work, and we ought to know where they live. (And if we don’t know, the Israelis do and would be more than happy to lend a hand.) We have cruise missiles, Stealth fighters, and B-1 bombers that can fly from the US to Teheran, drop their lethal loads, then return to the US without ever landing en route. We have skilled, courageous Special Forces teams that can get themselves on the ground in Teheran quietly and fast.
The question is whether we still have within us the instinct for survival. If we do, then our only course is to act – now, this minute, however we can – and to take out the mullahs. Tonight.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
Ayaan Hirsi Ali talked to Germany's Der Spiegel (ht lgf):
SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?
Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.
SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?
Hirsi Ali: Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.
SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?
Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.
Why American Newspapers are Anti-Danish
In a section of Opinion Journal titled
Fair Weather Free Speech Friends, James Taranto explains why the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe do not support the right to free speech of Danish journalists or cartoonists:
Fair Weather Free Speech Friends, James Taranto explains why the New York Times, Washington Post and Boston Globe do not support the right to free speech of Danish journalists or cartoonists:
What accounts for the difference? A combination of fear and ideology. Muslim fundamentalists, or at least some of them, express offense by torching embassies and threatening terrorist attacks. By contrast, U.S. military leaders write firm but polite letters to the editor, and Christian fundamentalists ask their elected representatives to stop spending tax money on offensive stuff. (Never believe a liberal when he professes to find Christian fundamentalists "scary.") There is no need to appease an opponent who respects rules of civilized behavior.
There is also an ideological component, which goes back to the essay we noted last week on "folk Marxism," or liberal multiculturalism. This ideology sees the world as a series of class struggles--not between economic classes, as in proper Marxism, but between racial, ethnic, religious, sexual or other identity groups, which are defined as either "oppressors" or "victims."
Generally speaking, multiculturalists consider Christians to be an oppressor class, while Muslims are a victim class. A victim class's grievances must be taken seriously and can even trump free expression, while the same is never true of an oppressor class's. (The multicultural worldview sees Jews as an intermediate class--victims of Christians, oppressors of Muslims--which is why liberals can be outraged by anti-Semitic imagery in "The Passion of the Christ" but unperturbed by terrorism against Israelis.)
In this regard, Hiatt's staunch defense of the Toles cartoon, which offended members of the military, is particularly telling. As we've noted, those on the antiwar left often talk of soldiers as if they were a victim class. We haven't heard any of them, however, side with the soldiers who find the Toles cartoon offensive. This suggests that the soldiers-as-victims trope is purely cynical.
Abu Hamza Convicted
According to the BBC,the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque has been found guilty of 11 counts of incitement to murder and racial hatred by a London jury. He will be open to extradition to the US for his alleged role in the 9/11 plot after completing his 7-year sentence. Abu Hamza's lawyers have said they will appeal.
Daniel Pipes on the Danish Cartoon Crisis: Like Father, Like Son
George W. is treating Islamist fanatics just like George H.W. did, Daniel Pipes says:
Strangely, as "Old Europe" finds its backbone, the Anglosphere quivers. So awful was the American government reaction, it won the endorsement of the country's leading Islamist organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This should come as no great surprise, however, for Washington has a history of treating Islam preferentially. On two earlier occasions it also faltered in cases of insults concerning Muhammad.
In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realist novel, The Satanic Verses. Rather than stand up for the novelist's life, President George H.W. Bush equated The Satanic Verses and the death edict, calling both "offensive." The then secretary of state, James A. Baker III, termed the edict merely "regrettable."
Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster of Muhammad as a pig, the American government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Bill Clinton, State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns called the woman in question "either sick or … evil" and stated that "She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam." The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst. As I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I "found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic."
Western governments should take a crash course on Islamic law and the historically-abiding Muslim imperative to subjugate non-Muslim peoples. They might start by reading the forthcoming book by Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale).
Peoples who would stay free must stand unreservedly with Denmark.
Tom Gross on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
Writing in Jerusalem Post, Tom Gross notes :
"The relatively mild Danish cartoons have been republished in several European papers so readers can discover what all the fuss is about. (It is hard for readers to judge the story without seeing them.) But not in papers in Britain, or in any major publications in the US, countries that are now apparently too intimidated to run the risks that might go with reproducing them.
At the same time, whereas editors from both the Guardian and Independent in London, for example, have appeared on the BBC saying they wouldn't dream of publishing cartoons that Muslims find offensive, these papers have not hesitated to publish cartoons offensive to Jews (Arab blood being smeared on the Western Wall in The Guardian, the flesh of Palestinian babies being eaten by Ariel Sharon in The Independent, and so on).
The New York Times rushed to praise a frivolous Broadway play showing Jesus having gay sex with Judas, yet hasn't dared to reproduce a Danish cartoon making a serious point about the misuse of the teachings of the prophet Muhammad by Islamist terrorists.
With demonstrators on the streets of London last Friday chanting in unison: 'Europe, you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way' and holding signs reading 'Behead those who insult Islam' and 'Prepare for the REAL Holocaust,' it is perhaps not surprising that weak spirits in the West are cowed.
Yet this is an issue that goes far beyond cartoons, and if they want Western freedoms to survive, moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike have to stop caving into threats. On Sunday, Mark Steyn reminded us of the best-known words of a famous fictional Dane: 'To be or not to be, that is the question.'
Exactly. " (ht The Augean Stables)
Sakharov Museum to Display Danish Cartoons
UPI reports that Russia's leading museum of dissidence will host the 12 Danish cartoons of Mohammed (ht Matt Drudge):
Yury Samodurov, director of the Sakharov Museum and Public Center, said on Russian television that the center was ready to organize a public exhibition of the cartoons satirizing the founder of Islam that originally were published in a Danish newspaper, Pravda.ru reported Monday.
"We must show the whole world that Russia goes along with Europe, that the freedom of expression is much more important for us than the dogmas of religious fanatics," Samodurov said.
The exhibition reportedly will open in March. Lawyer Yury Shmidt has said he will invite French philosopher Andre Glucksmann and French novelist Michel Houellebecq to the opening ceremony to read lectures about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
Ali Abunimah v Fouad Ajami on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
From The Newshour with Jim Lehrer:MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me get Professor Ajami to respond. And if you would, there were a lot of things put on the table there, but let's look at two issues he raised having to do with the Europeans here: One is he was essentially saying it's hypocritical. I mean, Europeans talk about free expression yet they ban expressions of Muslim faith in the public square essentially in many European countries; and secondly that there was something deliberately provocative about these cartoons and that perhaps is at the very least unwise.
I mean, do you think Europeans deserve any responsibility for this, especially the ones who republished them?
FOUAD AJAMI: Well none whatsoever because part of the challenge, if you will, of living and the advantage of living in a liberal society is the willingness to be offended.
And I think what these Muslim populations in Europe, what these Muslim populations are telling us today is that they're in the West geographically but not of West.They don't accept the challenge; they don't accept the difficulty of living in a pluralist liberal society; that they have brought with them the fire from Morocco, from Tunisia, from Algeria, from Egypt and Syria.
And I think these European societies have a problem because they tended to think that there is a battle between America and the Islamic world, and that they are innocent bystanders. They're not innocent bystanders and now they know this. They know this in Denmark. They know this in Holland. They know this in Sweden. And that's what we're really seeing.
We're really seeing millions of Muslims who have come to Europe; they've been granted the chance for a new life. And I think they need to make their peace with this modern society in which they find themselves. And they haven't done it yet.
MARGARET WARNER: So, Professor Ajami, staying with you for a minute, are you saying that you think the burden is really on the Muslims living in Europe and not at all on the European societies into which these Muslims have moved?
FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I think -- I think that's probably about it. I mean, I think you have to look at the dilemma of these Muslim populations in Europe.
You have 15 million, maybe you even have millions more undeclared who have come to Europe, and they need to respect the rules of European liberalism, and that they haven't really shown.
Like I took you to the beginning of this story, the time line -- this began in Denmark. And I think the Muslims in Denmark have to respect the rules of Denmark. And they have to acknowledge -- when in Rome, you live as the Romans do. And you are willing to be offended; you are willing to look the other way; and you are willing to accept that even though these cartoons are hideous and they're tasteless, that you don't go on a rampage. And you don't challenge the basic rules of European liberalism.
MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Abunimah, I'm sorry but very briefly if you could respond on whether Muslims living in European really need to accept those cultural norms of free expression?
ALI ABUNIMAH: Well, I reject Mr. Ajami's broad generalizations. Fifteen million Muslims haven't gone on rampages in Europe. The protests, though high profile, have not involved more than a tiny, tiny percentage of the Muslim population in Europe. I grew up in Europe.
I remember 20 years ago long before Sept. 11 in the streets of Brussels being picked on by the police just because I'm an Arab -- not because I don't accept European liberalism or democracy.
I'm an American. I love democracy. I love freedom. But I also think there needs to be mutual respect. And there needs to be a more sophisticated dialogue between Arabs, Muslims and people in the West, not just the kind of really simplistic name calling that Mr. Ajami is engaged in--
MARGARET WARNER: OK.
ALI ABUNIMAH: --and unfortunately has been his stock and trade.
MARGARET WARNER: OK. Mr. Ajami, brief response from you and then we're really out of time.
FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I think I don't want to engage him on this personal level. It's just idle.
I think fundamentally what this is really about, it's about the ability to accept the challenge of liberal society and to accept the challenge of dissent.
And I should add that many religious jurists in the Arab world, many prominent columnists, have condemned these hooligan attacks in Syria and Lebanon and have condemned the use of this episode for cynical political reasons. That's really what this story is all about.
Monday, February 06, 2006
More on Saudi Aims in Cartoon Crisis
In the form of a parody of a memo to the Saudi King, The Religious Policeman explains Saudi Arabia's possible strategy in the Danish Cartoon crisis:
I was perhaps too pessimistic at the end of my previous memo. Things have in fact turned out better than we might have expected.
As I reported, a number of other European newspapers did publish the cartoons. In two of those cases, the owners of those papers sacked the offending editors, thus demonstrating that jobs are at risk when we Muslims are offended! This, I am sure, is a lesson that will not have been lost on other editors. It is noticeable now that with a few striking exceptions, such as those very aggressive Germans, newspapers and broadcasters are very reluctant to show them further, and they appear not to have been shown at all in the USA.
What is also very gratifying is that officials in the West are not only accepting our right to be offended at whatever we choose, but they are also saying that the Western media should work to our standards, not theirs. It is striking how soon they forget about their self-professed "freedoms" when they witness a little righteous Muslim anger. Thus UK Foreign Secretary Straw's comment....
Mr Straw said the decision by some European newspapers to print the cartoons was "disrespectful" and he added that freedom of speech did not mean an "open season" on religious taboos.
....or to paraphrase him, "having a freedom does not mean that you have the right to use it". We could not have put it better ourselves; perhaps we should ask Mr Straw to write editorials for the "Arab News"! The US State Department, on the other hand, persists in proclaiming kuffar values....
Our response is to say that while we certainly don’t agree with, support, or in some cases, we condemn the views that are aired in public that are published in media organizations around the world, we, at the same time, defend the right of those individuals to express their views.
....however the US is overall becoming a bit of a problem to which I shall refer later.
Generally, active Muslims around the world have reacted well to our lead. As well as the unemployed "usual suspects" in Palestine and Indonesia, some British Muslims gave a particularly impressive display yesterday.
The official reaction of British officialdom - precisely nothing! - illustrates how successful we have been over the years in getting them to accept the "Principle of Asymmetry". In other words, we use their sense of "fair play", "multiculturalism", "democratic values", and of course their guilt feelings, against them, so that they restrict their own freedom of action, but are very lax when dealing with the Muslim, for fear of offense or violent reaction. This of course confuses and demoralizes the ordinary person-in-the-street, and weakens their resistance to the onward march of the Ummah.
May I just say, Your Majesty, how these events have demonstrated the wisdom of your decision to remind people about those old cartoons. The story has now developed a momentum of its own, it will run and run, and who remembers those pilgrims in Makkah? What pilgrims? Exactly! Not only that, but the Egyptians' poor maritime standards mean that a much larger death toll will now remain in the public eye.
Al Qaeda Mastermind Escapes...
Ooops!
The Washington Post reports that the Al Qaeda mastermind responsible for the US Cole bombing has tunnelled out of his jail in Sana, Yemen.
$87 billion for the War on Terror, and President Bush couldn't keep an eye on a key Al Qaeda leader--who is now free to strike again.
Where is Rudy Giuliani when we need him?
The Washington Post reports that the Al Qaeda mastermind responsible for the US Cole bombing has tunnelled out of his jail in Sana, Yemen.
$87 billion for the War on Terror, and President Bush couldn't keep an eye on a key Al Qaeda leader--who is now free to strike again.
Where is Rudy Giuliani when we need him?
Danish Cartoon Crisis Grows
According to this AP story, it's beginning to get ugly:
The European Union issued stern reminders to 18 Muslim countries that they are obliged under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to protect foreign embassies, and Austria — which now holds the EU Council presidency, reported calling in a top representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to express concerns for the safety of diplomatic missions.
The prime ministers of Spain and Turkey issued a Christian-Muslim appeal for calm, saying "we shall all be the losers if we fail to immediately defuse this situation."
But Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said media freedoms cannot be limitless and that hostility against Muslims was replacing anti-Semitism in the West.
Bull Moose: American Left Fails Danish Cartoon Test
Liberals are failing to defend the basic principles of liberalism in the Danish Cartoon case, says Bull Moose:
It would be nice if some of the ardent liberals on the Judiciary Committee spoke to the threat of radical Jihadism against our progressive values and underscored that it is the major threat to our civilization. After all, one dirty bomb or suicide attack will render the entire ACLU agenda obsolete. And the freedoms that we hold dear are under an international assault by radical Islam.
Conservatives should not be the prime defenders of international liberal values. Progressives can bring an important moral witness to the fight against Jihadism - just as hawkish liberals such as Humphrey and Meany did during the Cold War. But, despite the vile brutality and the raging mobs of radical Islam, too many lefties view that the main threat to their values is the person who sits in the Oval Office or clear sighted progressives such as Joe Lieberman.
Sorry Mr. and Ms. Moveon and your lefty allies. You are blissfully ignoring the greatest threat to our nation's freedom and security which is the deeply reactionary force of radical Islam. Nixonism is long dead but Jihadism is alive. Since Moveon has perfected the morph ad, how about one transforming Ahmadinejad into Hitler? That would defy the CW about you folks!
Buy Danish.
Andrew Sullivan on Danish Cartoon Crisis
Andrew Sullivan's on a roll today, with a good link to this British Muslim blogger speaking out against the protest movement, a history of Denmark during the Holocaust, and this email from a Dane disappointed at official American and British responses to the plight of an ally under attack:
As a Dane, I am very much apalled by the state of mind in much of the Muslim world. But I am frankly disgusted by such a comment as "frankly, it was a nice "fuck you" to Europe. I LOVED it". Denmark has been a steadfast NATO ally for half a century. My father sailed in the Danish navy, my uncles served in the Danish army, most of my friends were conscripted to serve in armed forces arrayed alongside America against Soviet despotism. I myself served as an artilleryman and was on watch on the eve when the Soviet Union finally fell.
Denmark was one of only four nations who answered the call, when the United States of America asked for the world to overthrow Saddam Hussein's violent regime. This very day our troops serve alongside yours in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quite frankly I expected that a Danish prime minister, who has invested considerable political goodwill in standing by an old ally, should have received more support from the American government and the American people. Learn some geography, history and diplomacy before you insult a nation committed to the fight for liberty and justice alongside the United States of America. Europe is not a single entity and some of us should have earned more respect than this. Despite our small size we try to hold our head high in the face of this anti-democratic onslaught. Will you not stand by us, as we have stood by you?"
Michelle Malkin on the Cartoon Jihad
Michelle Malkin has some more thoughts about the meaning of worldwide protests against the Danish Cartoons. Meanwhile, the BBC is reporting four are now dead in cartoon protests:
Demonstrators shouted "death to Denmark" and "death to France", and called for diplomats and soldiers from both countries to be kicked out of Afghanistan.
Both France and Denmark sent troops to Afghanistan as part of international efforts in the US-led "war on terror".
"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.
"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said.
Whew!
I was a little nervous picking a Super Bowl winner earlier. It made watching the Big Game with my family and friend (a former HS quarterback, and Seahawks fan) even more exciting. Even allowing for bad calls, and officials who must hail from Pittsburgh, the Steelers really won--by more than 6 points, too.
"Beginner's luck..." my friend said afterwards.
"Beginner's luck..." my friend said afterwards.
Daily Kos Blames Saudi Arabia for Danish Cartoon Crisis
While I've been speculating about Iran, the Daily Kos has posted charges that Saudi Arabia may be behind the Danish Cartoon crisis. I don't usually believe much I read on the Daily Kos, but this time I'd say the theory bears some looking into. It's not impossible--and if true, the Saudis and their agents would have committed acts of war in fomenting assaults on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. In the old days, Gunboat Diplomacy doctrine would have called for Danes and Norwegians (and perhaps even the EU and/or NATO) to drop MOABs on Riyadh in a punitive response...
Sunday, February 05, 2006
The Mohammed Image Archive
For some historical background to todya's Danish Cartoon Crisis, Roger L. Simon tipped us off to this online gallery of images of Mohammed--many done by Islamic artists.
Mark Steyn on Danish Cartoon Crisis
From the Chicago Sun-Times (ht Michelle Malkin):
Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.
That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.
One day, years from now, as archaeologists sift through the ruins of an ancient civilization for clues to its downfall, they'll marvel at how easy it all was. You don't need to fly jets into skyscrapers and kill thousands of people. As a matter of fact, that's a bad strategy, because even the wimpiest state will feel obliged to respond. But if you frame the issue in terms of multicultural "sensitivity," the wimp state will bend over backward to give you everything you want -- including, eventually, the keys to those skyscrapers. Thus, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, hailed the "sensitivity" of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending cartoons.
Amerikan Turk: Danish Cartoons Prove Pen Mightier Than Sword
This Turkish-American blogger says the Danish Cartoon crisis is tilting in favor of the Danish Cartoons.
My Super Bowl Pick
I don't know much about football, but I did watch the playoffs after the Army-Navy game. My pick is Pittsburgh to win, by at least 6 points. I really am not up to figuring out a better point spread. (Just checked online oddsmakers to learn Pittsburgh is favored by 4 points). My rationale is that Steelers just seem bigger and heavier. Of course, we'll all find out what happens tomorrow at 3 pm Pacific Time...
Link Between Iran Nuclear Crisis & Danish Cartoon Crisis?
Others may have already thought of this, but it seems to me that there may be a link between growing pressure on Iran over the nuclear question and growing violence and pressure against Europe on the Danish Cartoon issue.
Anyone who has seen the cartoons knows they are "tame" and not on their face offensive. Yet the organized and international nature of the protest would indicate state support as well as religious sensitivity. Given that the original offense took place four months ago, the outbreak of violence at this point raised the question:
What if this is a shot across the bow to the EU and the non-Muslim world that an attack on Iran could lead to the Muslim "street" exploding around the world?
Just a working hypothesis at this point--but all the more reason for the US and UK to take a stronger stand in support of the Danes, if true. For if this was a test, then the US and UK look like they have failed the test. They have been intimidated. And the Europeans, so far have not.
Which means military action, if it does take place, will require a great deal better diplomatic and public relations support than the Iraq war.
America and the West look like they are losing to the Islamists (whether they are really losing according to DoD "metrics" is not relevant). Embolded in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine; Iran and her extremist allies are no doubt feeling very cocky. Which would explain why embassies are burning in Damascus (anyone out there remember the recent signing of Syrian-Iranian defense agreements?)
Bush and company should not make the same mistake twice. They cannot afford to take America to war again while divided. That means US Democrats must be on board before any action takes place. One good move might be for Rumsfeld to resign in favor of a Democratic secretary of defense, someone like former Senator Sam Nunn, or Zell Miller, before starting any more wars.
Or, barring that, at least a totally competent and trustworthy Republican. My candidate--Rudy Giuliani.
UPDATE: This story from India's Sunday Express provides evidence for an Iran Nuclear-Danish Cartoon link:
Anyone who has seen the cartoons knows they are "tame" and not on their face offensive. Yet the organized and international nature of the protest would indicate state support as well as religious sensitivity. Given that the original offense took place four months ago, the outbreak of violence at this point raised the question:
What if this is a shot across the bow to the EU and the non-Muslim world that an attack on Iran could lead to the Muslim "street" exploding around the world?
Just a working hypothesis at this point--but all the more reason for the US and UK to take a stronger stand in support of the Danes, if true. For if this was a test, then the US and UK look like they have failed the test. They have been intimidated. And the Europeans, so far have not.
Which means military action, if it does take place, will require a great deal better diplomatic and public relations support than the Iraq war.
America and the West look like they are losing to the Islamists (whether they are really losing according to DoD "metrics" is not relevant). Embolded in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine; Iran and her extremist allies are no doubt feeling very cocky. Which would explain why embassies are burning in Damascus (anyone out there remember the recent signing of Syrian-Iranian defense agreements?)
Bush and company should not make the same mistake twice. They cannot afford to take America to war again while divided. That means US Democrats must be on board before any action takes place. One good move might be for Rumsfeld to resign in favor of a Democratic secretary of defense, someone like former Senator Sam Nunn, or Zell Miller, before starting any more wars.
Or, barring that, at least a totally competent and trustworthy Republican. My candidate--Rudy Giuliani.
UPDATE: This story from India's Sunday Express provides evidence for an Iran Nuclear-Danish Cartoon link:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today ordered the cancellation of economic contracts with countries where media have carried the cartoons, the isna news agency reported. The report said Ahmadinejad had ordered the creation of an official body to respond to the cartoons, saying the regime “must revise and cancel economic contracts with the countries that started this repulsive act and those that followed them.”
The decree also condemned the “the insult by certain western media of the prophet which shows the hatred towards Islam and Muslims of the Zionists who govern these countries and the absence of serious action by the leaders of these countries”. The body looking into reprisals will be headed by Iran’s commerce minister and include a deputy foreign minister, a deputy oil minister and a deputy industry minister, isna said.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Klinghoffer: A Letter from Denmark
Judith Apter Klinghoffer' Danish email correspondent isn't very happy with US waffling on the cartoon crisis:
A DANE TO US: WE STOOD BY YOU . . .
I received a very bitter email this morning from a Danish friend.
It hurt:
Thank you very much for your support, but alas there is aboslutely no reason whatsoever to thank the official US. Join the coalition of the "willing" (become a prostitute, it seems like now) as one of the very few civilized nations, get your young men killed in Basra and receive a knife in the back from the Bush-administration as a most civilized thank you. Shame on that crooked administration of slow readers in The White House.
And shame not only on Labor but on the British press, calling Jyllands-Posten "Der Stürmer" planning a new Holocaust, while Jack Straw is condemning us. Not exactly a new Churchill.
Shame on our two disloyal ex-allies. And shame on weak and fearful Annan and the UN The world's gone topsy-turvy: Germany and France show common sense, backbone and true loyalty. Our warmest thanks fly in the direction of Wolfgang Schäuble.
In London the demonstrators now emphasize, that there is no reason to apologize, we don't have to, it is not required, and it won't make any difference. The 12 cartoonists just must be executed - by us or else they can fix it, it will be beheading, they explain, sooner or later. Perhaps in ten years time. And then the whole matter is forgotten and DK can live in peace again.
Do not forget: Buy Danish!
Piss Christ v Danish Cartoons: Which Is More "Offensive"?
Ed Driscoll found out that the NY Times not only printed pictures of "Piss Christ"--the editors hired photographer Andres Serrano to work for the newspaper...(ht Instapundit)
Wikipedia on Danish Cartoon Crisis
There's a big Wikipedia website devoed to the Danish Cartoon controversy, here.
London Protester Baby Bonnet: "I Love Al Qaeda"
Jihad Watch posted this report on London's Danish Cartoon protest (ht Free Republic):From the UK's Sun tabloid, covering the London cartoon rage demonstrations:
More than 400 protesters — including small children — carried placards scrawled with messages of hate. A baby girl even had “I Love al-Qaeda” on her bonnet.
The parents of pretty Farisa Jihad, 20 months, proudly proclaimed she is the youngest member of the terror group.
She was brought to the protest by her father Abu, 38. Next to her was a huge poster exclaiming: “Whoever insults a prophet, kill him.”
Another placard nearby said: “Britain you will pay — 7/7 is on its way.”
What will Britain pay for? The UK papers didn't reprint the cartoons.
The American Thinker on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
Martin Ostergaard reports from Denmark:
In September 2005, Jyllands Posten decided to publish 12 caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Muhammed, as a response to criticism of depictions of the Prophet in a book about his life. Several of the artists presented in that book did not want their names published along with it, for fear of retribution. The thinking behind Jyllands Posten’s bold move, was to show support for the artists and to make a statement about free speech.
Since then a small delegation of Muslim religious leaders who reside in Denmark have been on a tour of various Muslim states in order to bring attention to this fairly straightforward case. Unfortunately they did not stop at the facts.
Disinformation was fabricated in order to characterize the Danish population and government as fiercely anti-Muslim. Several new drawings were added likening Muhammed to a pig, as well as statements to the effect that Danish citizens were under the impression that the Prophet was a violent pedophile.
Suddenly a display of free speech had turned into blasphemous slander, which naturally enraged all of the Muslim world. Throughout all of this, several of the religious leaders responsible for the disinformation, had been feeding sweet words of reason to the Danish press with one hand and more disinformation to the Arab press with the other.
This has further outraged the Danish population, and with it, most of Europe, invoking many newspapers to print the caricatures or versions of them in protest. Even Muslim residents in Denmark felt like targets of unfair attention for what a small handful of men had done. In general most Danes seem to take comfort in the fact that news media and private citizens of other countries sympathize with us in this situation.
As of yesterday, February 3rd 2006, Abu Laban, one of the imams in the infamous disinformation delegation, spoke out in his weekly prayer meeting to hundreds of Muslims and representatives of the press, about calming the waters and working in unison to reach a mutually beneficial goal. A statement that is bound to be met with skepticism, considering his track record. Only time will truly tell if this turnaround is as sincere as the words indicated. In the meantime the Danish government will be looking into deportation and/or denial of reentrance for some of the imams in the delegation. Also further restrictions on immigration are possible within the near future.
Finally, rumors of new terrorist attacks being planned are reaching the news, and in light of recent events, many Danes have more than a passing fear that these will be brought against us. Paradoxically we are oddly distanced from the possibility at the same time, since this kind of threat has never before been a serious consideration.
It seems the gloves will be coming off.
Roger L Simon on the Burning of Syria's Danish Embassy
Roger L Simon argues that the burning of the Danish embassy in Damascus, Syria might prove to be a watershed.
Daryl Cagle on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
Reaction from working cartoonists can be found on Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index. He even has a letter from the editor of the Danish newspaper at the center of this storm:
Jyllands-Posten reporter Anders Raahauge was very helpful in getting us up to speed with the Muhammad cartoons story early on. I asked Anders for his comments from the center of the storm, about how things look from Denmark and the Jyllands-Posten now that the Muhammad cartoons story has evolved into a hurricane.
Hi Daryl
Well, apart from the major events, that you now finally get from the (news) agencies (latest is the embassy-fire in Damascus, with Syrian police not protecting the building), I can tell about the climate: the most liberal-left wing Danes can understand the Muslim reaction (suffering discrimination for so long etc.). Industry owners are wringing their hands about the trade-boykott, urging for apologies, they also - well some of them, (and) other "capitalists," stand tall and declare that any bill should be paid without whimpering; some principles are too dear to be sold out. And apart from that, they hold (that) the situation is like negotiating with terrorists who take hostages -you'll never see the end of it but only (see) new demands. So one may as well decline any surrender from the outset.
And the many Danes? Well, judging from the letters to the newspapers, the vast majority take this second stance. Enough is enough. We won't be dictated (to about ) How to behave in our own country; we are not going to settle things like they do in the Middle East-dictatorships ... Of course some Danes are pretty anxious, terror threats have been launched, but the mood is predominantly defiant, and people consider the case an eye-opener.
Your poor colleagues though: In London the demonstrators now emphazise that there is no reason to apologize, it is not required, and it won't make any difference. The 12 cartoonists just must be executed - by us or else they can fix it (themselves), preferably (by) beheading, they explain. And that can, as in the case of Rushdie, be sooner or later; perhaps in ten years time. Will the cartoonists ever get their lives back? ...
best
Anders
Roger Kimball on the Danish Cartoon Crisis
He quotes from The Belmont Club's analysis in The New Criterion.
There's also interesting stuff at Sisu
There's also interesting stuff at Sisu
Ibn Warraq: Do Not Apologize
Just Observing quotes advice on how to handle the Danish Cartoon crisis, from a leading anti-Islamist in the Middle East:
A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.
Charles Moore: Face Down Cartoon Terror Campaign
Writing in the Telegraph, Charles Moore points out that Jack Straw and Sean McCormack simply don't know the history of Muslim attitudes towards pictures of the Prophet:
There is no reason to doubt that Muslims worry very much about depictions of Mohammed. Like many, chiefly Protestant, Christians, they fear idolatry. But, as I write, I have beside me a learned book about Islamic art and architecture which shows numerous Muslim paintings from Turkey, Persia, Arabia and so on. These depict the Prophet preaching, having visions, being fed by his wet nurse, going on his Night-Journey to heaven, etc. The truth is that in Islam, as in Christianity, not everyone agrees about what is permissible.
Some of these depictions are in Western museums. What will the authorities do if the puritan factions within Islam start calling for them to be removed from display (this call has been made, by the way, about a medieval Christian depiction of the Prophet in Bologna)? Will their feeling of "offence" outweigh the rights of everyone else?
Obviously, in the case of the Danish pictures, there was no danger of idolatry, since the pictures were unflattering. The problem, rather, was insult. But I am a bit confused about why someone like Qaradawi thinks it is insulting to show the Prophet's turban turned into a bomb, as one of the cartoons does. He never stops telling us that Islam commands its followers to blow other people up.
If we take fright whenever extreme Muslims complain, we put more power in their hands. If the Religious Hatred Bill had passed unamended this week, it would have been an open invitation to any Muslim who likes getting angry to try to back his anger with the force of law. Even in its emasculated state, the Bill will still encourage him, thus stirring the ill-feeling its authors say they want to suppress.
On the Today programme yesterday, Stewart Lee, author of Jerry Springer: The Opera - in which Jesus appears wearing nappies - let the cat out of the bag. He suggested that it was fine to offend Christians because they had themselves degraded their iconography; Islam, however, has always been more "conscientious about protecting the brand".
The implication of the remark is fascinating. It is that the only people whose feelings artists, newspapers and so on should consider are those who protest violently. The fact that Christians nowadays do not threaten to blow up art galleries, invade television studios or kill writers and producers does not mean that their tolerance is rewarded by politeness. It means that they are insulted the more.
Right now, at the fashionable White Cube Gallery in Hoxton, you can see the latest work of Gilbert and George, mainly devoted, it is reported, to attacks on the Catholic Church. The show is called Sonofagod Pictures and it features the head of Christ on the Cross replaced with that of a primitive deity. One picture includes the slogan "God loves F***ing".
Like most Christians, I find this offensive, but I think I must live with the offence in the interests of freedom. If I find, however, that people who threaten violence do have the power to suppress what they dislike, why should I bother to defend freedom any more? Why shouldn't I ring up the Hon Jay Jopling, the proprietor, and tell him that I shall burn down the White Cube Gallery unless he tears Gilbert and George off the walls? I won't, I promise, but how much longer before some Christians do? The Islamist example shows that it works.
There is a great deal of talk about responsible journalism, gratuitous offence, multicultural sensitivities and so on. Jack Straw gibbers about the irresponsibility of the cartoons, but says nothing against the Muslims threatening death in response to them. I wish someone would mention the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam - fear. And then I wish someone would face it down.
Indigo Lake on Danish Cartoon Crisis
Jen's blog points out that blasphemy is everywhere in the US (not just in South Park), for example: Rock the Casbah is offensive to Islam.
So, Sean McCormack, Condoleeza Rice, and George Bush, fasten your seatbelts--it's going to be a bumpy ride...
So, Sean McCormack, Condoleeza Rice, and George Bush, fasten your seatbelts--it's going to be a bumpy ride...
Andrew Sullivan: Media Lie About Danish Cartoons
Andrew Sullivantells it like it is:
The Lie
One meme that deserves to be nipped in the bud is that the original Danish cartoons were somehow intended purely for offense. Since most American papers and magazines will not publish the cartoons, many people might actually believe this. In fact the context of the publication reveals a much more important point. From Wikipedia's summary:
The drawings, which include a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, were meant as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten commissioned and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty of Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen to find artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
The point was to expose the bullying of Islamists. And boy, have the cartoons succeeded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)