Free, even to offend

Toronto Star ^ | 4 February 2006 | Toronto Star

[Cornpone]

In recent years, some Christians have been deeply offended by modern "art" that pictures Jesus's face on the lid of a "toilet altar." That has a Crucifix immersed in urine or offers a picture of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung. Some see such images as a blasphemous affront to faith and an attack on believers.

But the American and British artists who produced these images were free to put them on display, and they have been widely reproduced.

Freedom of expression in Canada and other democracies is a cherished, fundamental right. And being free, means being free to challenge, provoke and even offend.

That is the context in which Canadians must consider the fury that has erupted across the Muslim world after the publication of a collection of "blasphemous" caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper, and reprinted elsewhere. The Qu'ran bans depictions of the Prophet.

These cartoons not only show him, but crudely mock him. One has Muhammad wearing a turban bomb. Another has him wearing the crescent of Islam as devil's horns.

The images have sparked one of the ugliest and, possibly, most hypocritical cultural clashes in years.

Yesterday Muslims in many countries staged huge protests after Friday prayers, demanding the Danish government punish the newspaper for its "Islamophobic" and "racist" cartoons. Ambassadors have been recalled. There have been bomb threats. Attacks on diplomats. An economic boycott. Death threats.

While many Canadians will sympathize with Muslim dismay at this shabby treatment of the Prophet, this reaction is out of proportion to the offence. Those living in Western, secular, democratic societies have long since moved away from the days when blasphemy invited stoning.

That said, the cartoons are problematic for another reason.

They bait Muslims and risk inciting hatred by equating Islam with terror and evil. They would likely withstand a legal challenge here, because the courts wisely give wide latitude to political commentary. Papers are free to air a variety of opinion.

Even so, some of the cartoons are gratuitously offensive. The Star would not have published them, although we affirm our right to do so.

And sadly, there is hypocrisy all around in this melodrama.

Many Muslims who are angry come from Arab states where the press routinely prints cartoons linking the Jewish faith to violence. Recent ones have made a Star of David into a terrorist's face, and have shown an orthodox Jew blowing flame from a ram's horn to scorch an Islamic shrine. Where is the outrage at these images by people who are upset by the caricatures of Mohammed?

By the same token, liberal democrats in Europe and elsewhere who fault the Arab press for invoking religion as a means to make a political point, are poorly placed trying to justify the Danish cartoons, which do the same thing.

Jyllands-Posten had a right to print them. Whether it was wise to exercise that right, is another matter.

[kjo]

Actually, the right to offend is under constant attack, mostly from liberals. PC speech codes, "hate" crimes, university rules restricting free speech are all examples of the Left restricting the right to offend.

We have been on this road for a generation or more. It should not be a surprise that most of the MSM has backed off from publishing the rather harmless cartoons in question.

We lose our freedom, a little at a time.

[mewzilla]

Whether it was wise to exercise that right, is another matter.

Now what does that mean? What should wisdom have to do with it? I mean wisdom would be nice, but when has the lack of it ever stopped the press? And how about the wisdom of publishing all the stuff that's blasphemous to Christians? Or doesn't wisdom need to come into it when dealing with folks who'll turn the other cheek?

[FeeinTennessee]

Christians would not threaten violence against someone who bashed Jesus. But we would certainly state our displeasure over it.

Now with Muslims...who are now burning the Danish embassy, and threatening violence against anyone who would bash Islam or their prophet, they don't factor in the fact that newspapers or any other media have the freedom in their own countries to print whatever they want. They can disagree to civily, but apparently threatening violence against people is more convenient.

[dirtboy]

Whether it was wise to exercise that right, is another matter.

When you do not defend rights, even if you do not agree with how the rights were exercised, you lose them by proxy.

[Lurker]

Hang on a sec.

L

[mainepatsfan]

It's unpopular speech that needs the protection most.

[dirtboy]

Actually, the right to offend is under constant attack, mostly from liberals.

Who are the most offensive types.

But I would also defend their right to annoy me.

Even as I type rebuttals that make them look like the fools they are.

And like this column pointed out, Muslims have no problem with blasphemy and religous persecution.

But like liberals, they could care less if you point out their hypocrisy.

And a man who could care less about his hypocrisy is a very dangerous man indeed - because that means he has no core values to negotiate with for co-existence. He just wants your values to disappear.

And that is what is at stake here - will Western values disappear - not because Muslims and liberals demand such - but because we will not fight to defend such.

[Bob]

While most of those living in Western, secular, democratic societies have long since moved away from the days when blasphemy invited stoning, some have not.

There, I fixed it.

[Lurker]

Hey Canada,

Here's what the islamonazis think about freedom:

They want the freedom to cut your frigging empty heads off.,

L

[FierceDraka]

What's striking to me is the reaction from liberals on some of the other forums I frequent.

From Fark.com: "Am I the only liberal here who thinks 'nuke-and-pave' is a good idea?"

This was followed up by many responses from other liberals who agreed with the poster's statement.

What's really ironic is that the liberals have been screaming about OUR reaction to the endless murders committed by Islamic animals.

But when the Moozies get their panties in a wad over friggin' CARTOONS, that's when the liberals start wanting to literally go nuclear.

"Muslims kill thousands and thousands of people all over the world? No problem - it's OUR fault that they hate us! But if they go after our cartoons, I say nuke 'em!"

Well, what ever it takes to get them to wake up and get on board, I guess.

[Tzimisce]

Ban it in the name of tolerance!

[mewzilla]

In May of 2005, a bunch of angry Muslims burned a Christian cross in front of the American Embassy in London.

How the heck did we offend them that time? And if we did nothing other than exist, sounds to me like these cartoons aren't a reason for violence. They're a PRETEXT.

[Peach]

For those who were disheartened to hear the State Department's official position regarding the Islamic cartoon matter, the press has misrepresented their official position (no surprise).

The statement in its entirety can be read here:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571906/posts

[kingu]

They bait Muslims and risk inciting hatred by equating Islam with terror and evil.

So they print a few cartoons and what happens? Violence around the world? That's not baiting them, that's exposing them. The Toronto Star is uncomfortable about that...

They would likely withstand a legal challenge here, because the courts wisely give wide latitude to political commentary. Papers are free to air a variety of opinion.

Just not this opinion because you're afraid of what this religion would do to your offices. You're afraid that they'll be exposed for being terrorists and evil.

Even so, some of the cartoons are gratuitously offensive.

That's a right that the Toronto Star reserves for conservatives and Christian religions. Because they generally don't go flying planes into buildings, or walk into your lobby and spontaneously explode.

The Star would not have published them, although we affirm our right to do so.

Typical liberal methodology here - we would do it, we have the right to do it, and some might even suggest we have the responsibility to do it, but we're chicken droppings and will hide behind our supposed moral superiority. If I walked into those offices right now and paid for an ad with those cartoons on it, you'd kick me out faster than the Democrat party throws reason out the window. And likely call the cops as well. The whole editorial was about freedom of speech. The way it came out is freedom of accepted speech, and the bunch at Toronto Star intend to determine what is, and what isn't, accepted.

[popdonnelly]

Why can't Mr. Bigmouth uncover his face? Is he on someone's wanted list?

[Peach]

Thanks to prairiebreeze for this:

Please take a look at some further analysis about the State Dept statement.
Right Wing Nuthouse calls it more of an example of laziness and poor writing ability on the media's part. For instance he says:

So just where did the State Department get it wrong? They stand up for free speech. They recognize that the cartoons offended Muslims. They tell the idiots in the Middle East to look to their own portrayals of Jews and Christians before going off half cocked about the Mohamed cartoons. And they call upon everyone to settle down.

But all we got from press reports was the fact that the State Department seems to be condemning the Danes and other European publications for running the offending cartoons and an obligatory nod to the First Amendment.

Also on this Little Green Footballs link Charles posts the transcript from the actual briefing of Scott McCormack at State Dept. He gives a MUCH fuller explanation to the State Dept's stance on the situation with Denmark than was initially reported by the press. AND, btw, reported word for word by three different reporters.

[M203M4]

Those living in Western, secular, democratic societies have long since moved away from the days when blasphemy invited stoning.

Amen.

[popdonnelly]

I can understand people taking offense at these cartoons. But the violent response is totally out of line with the offense. And at some point, freedom of speech has to be protected from coercion.

[Lurker]

If they ever 'march' in Chicago I'm going to make a sign that says:

Hey Islamobabe! Show Your T*TS!

L