Except insane.
Posted on 02/04/2006 5:16:06 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Last week, Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to Hell!" There could be no more graphic illustration of the paradox at the heart of the cartoon row. These protesters were exercising - and in many cases abusing - the freedom of protest and freedom of assembly that are foundation stones of British democracy. Yet, even as they exploited these hard-won liberties, they were calling for them to be abolished.
This newspaper would not have published the cartoons of Mohammed at the centre of this controversy, images which we regard as vulgar and fatuously insulting. But - and this is the crucial point - we reserve absolutely our right to make our own decision, free of threat and intimidation. The difficulty is that what started as an issue of editorial judgment has become a question of public order. The protesters in London with their disgraceful slogans - "Behead those who Insult Islam", "Britain you will pay - 7/7 is on its way" - have made it all but impossible for a genuinely free debate on this issue to take place. All such debate is now being carried out in the shadow of murderous intimidation.
In this wretched affair, no sight has been more wretched than that of Jack Straw last week kowtowing to militant Islam. "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that," the Foreign Secretary said, "but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory." How pathetic that Mr Straw did not find time to condemn the outrageous behaviour of protesters at home and abroad. Where, also, was Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, as Islamic militants called for bloodshed?
The Government's response is especially feeble when compared to Margaret Thatcher's behaviour during the Rushdie Affair. Whatever her private feelings about the author, she and her Cabinet colleagues were resolute in their defence of his rights. Even before the fatwah, she declared that "it is an essential part of our democratic system that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely".
In this controversy, Mr Straw has been put to shame by the German home minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who robustly defended the freedom of newspapers to make their own decisions. "Why should the German government apologise?" he said. "This is an expression of press freedom." In contrast, the British Government's craven response has sent a terrible signal: those who wish to see free expression curtailed need only light a flame, issue a threat and wave an angry fist.
The bitter irony of the protests is that Britain proved itself after the July 7 bombings to be a tolerant, multi-cultural society. Quite rightly, the citizens of this country drew a sharp distinction between their law-abiding Muslim compatriots and the extremists responsible for the atrocities.
The problem is that militant Islam is not seeking a level playing field - equality before the law, for instance - but special treatment. Muslims expect, as they should, the benefits and protections of British pluralism but, in too many cases, baulk at the duties that are their corollary. One of those duties is to accept that, in a free society, there are occasions when each of us is bound to be offended. "Everyone is in favour of free speech," remarked Churchill. "Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like - but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." There is no excuse for gratuitous offence, of course. But some Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women's rights, theocracy and Western practices are to many non-Muslims. The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close British mosques or Islamic newspapers.
The abrasions of a modern, multi-faith society are constant and need to be negotiated calmly and diplomatically. The proper boundaries of speech, art and humour are matters for continuous democratic review and consultation. What is completely unacceptable is that this debate should be carried out in a climate of fear.
For let us not delude ourselves: it is violence, or the threat of violence, that has driven the decisions that have been made in the past week. At a time when reasonable dialogue is most needed, the supposed custodians of our democracy are allowing a gun to be held to its head.
Islam is an army disguised as a religion. They'll eventually all be deported.
huh? guns are banned in englad so that cant be true
L
Like the Leninists, Islam seeks to control the state without being subject to the state.
I hope you're right, but I wouldn't put money on it.
Good article.
That makes two of us, old friend...
the infowarrior
Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women's rights, theocracy and Western practices are to many non-Muslims.
The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close British mosques or Islamic newspapers.
Oh no? Then it's time we did something about the Islamic
hegemony. Muslims do not consider kafir "feelings" and offending them is their right.
Let any other group act in this manner and arrests would be made, the press would be in an uproar!
Frankly it's time Islam was delt such a blow as to cause
muslims to question their beliefs.
L
This thing is starting to remind me of the way the Muslims whined when the Newspapers printed pictures of Abu Gharib.
Now Denmark and Norway are getting their taste of what happens when news sources run with something they should know better than to print. Abu Gharib should have never been in the paper , The newspaper minions knew when they printed it that it would hurt this country, they printed it anyway. The same goes for the story about NSA, That leak should have never been divulged.
Now I really dont believe the Danes realised the crap they would stir with that cartoon, but I wonder if they would have printed it anyway.
That IS what it will take.
Unfortunately it will only occur after
major American Cities lay waste.
"This newspaper would not have published the cartoons of Mohammed at the centre of this controversy, images which we regard as vulgar and fatuously insulting."
Hogwash. They are very tame--even lame. I've seen much worse in Muslim cartoons about Jews.
Let the Telegraph publish them, in order to inform the public of the issues; and also to show solidarity with those publications on the contitent which are still fighting for freedom of the press.
(Otherwise, we can expect the imposition of Sharia blasphemy laws, and our politicians will go right along with accepting that.)
They are demanding special treatment in Britain and they will get it too. They are already getting it here.
I agree. Trouble lies ahead.
Isn't that the Muslim equivalent of "Zeig Heil"?
I've been thinking the same thing. He has been the voice of reason. There is another thread that is says NBC won't even show the cartoons that spawned all this.
Except insane.
It seems that someone, apparently a few imams, deliberatly included three really naughty images along with the tame ones used in the nordic papers.
This is intentional flame-fanning by radical islam and a strategic ploy to continue their imposition of tryanny in europe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.