Posted on 02/05/2006 5:16:46 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
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.
This bears repeating. I have heard the protests of "right-winged-talk-radio" and how it must be stopped as one example of the process. There are so many groups trying to get Sean or Rush in trouble.
"These protesters were exercising - and in many cases abusing - the freedom of protest and freedom of assembly that are foundation stones of British democracracy."
This is just lawlessness, and as long as people keep tacking the, freedom of speech, tag on the end it will only get worse.
In truth, it IS impossible, not 'near impossible', to coexist peacefully with Muslims in a pluralistic society.
The fundamental tenets of that pseudo-philosophy, quasi-religion clearly espouse the ultimacy of Islam. It requires the subjugation of ALL non-believers; allowing to live, only those who can provide for the needs of the true believers.
Sadly, the current European conditions are the result of apology, appeasement and a broken welfare-state model that is not yet broadly understood by many. My hope is that the free nations of the world come to their senses before it is too late.
But, it is possible and most certainly necessary, simply because there are just too many Muslims in the world to do otherwise.
The hard question is "how" ?
The question is asked knowing full well that even the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, who had some standing among warring religious factions, sure as heck couldn't provide an answer.
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.
I wonder if one could get billboards with the dreaded bomb head plastered all over, no words, just the bomb headed Mohammed.
From what I've gathered, I'm coming to believe that International ANSWER has a heavy hand in organizing a lot of this.
Anybody know where Mad Ivan is,,he gives such good reports and we need an on ground observor in Britain.
Ivan? Come hither!
Let em carry them I say. They've done more to discredit the myth of Islam is Peace by doing so then all the reasoned arguments could do.
Exactly. It never ceases to amaze me that Western liberals still become surprised when Muslims behave in a barbaric, insane manner.
Why do they continue to expect that these people will behave sanely and rationally when the Muslims continually give every indication that they have no intention of doing so? It is the same as having a rattlesnake for a pet and then being shocked when it bites you.
One could print off a number of these and place them under the winshield wipers of parked cars at various mosques, but I wouldn't recommend it. Civil liablity penalties might be involved. (Of course, if all the public johns in America suddenly found a new graffiti image it might be a nice break from, "Here I sit all broken hearted....")
Suppose you and others who believe this is a World War of the scope and intensity of the first two World Wars are correct. Now, suppose that we win it.
Describe victory to me, please
Incitement, pure and simple. Go carry a sign in London reading "Mohammed: The Pedohile Prophet" and see how long until police put you in a paddywagon.
Rioting against Danish cartoonists in cities that have hosted their raggedy butts makes about as much sense as a mooselimb moron can conjure.
What a load. What if ... "But some Nazis might like to consider how insulitng their own views on jews, religion, and aryan superiority are to many non-Nazis. The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close Nazi offices or Nazi newspaper."
Gandhi couldn't provide an answer because there is no answer.
Even a cursory review of the press releases from the various Muslim locales clearly shows that these folks are not interested in dialogue. They are not interested in compromise. They are not interested in assimilating into any other culture or society.
They are interested in establishing the primacy of Islam; creating the global caliphate. As long as the younger generations of the faith are raised in closed cultures, schooled by the Islamic fundamentalists, and taught only what is deemed 'appropriate', it is useless for others to think that useful, fruitful discussion can be had with any of them.
It now appears that Europe is awakening to the horrible result of their blind immigration policies of the past thirty years; a policy undetaken to support their cradle-to-grave welfare state models. The Muslims took advantage of that blindness to seed and expand their presence in those countries.
Now, with numbers that can influence public opinion, they are 'demanding' that those host nations enact laws to accommodate the Shari'a tenets of their faith.
I believe it's time for the great mass of the Europeans to stand firm, and to say, unequivocally, "Not on my watch"...
It's a good thing a Danish cartoonist didn't depict mohammed engaged in his favorite sexual activity.
You'd think 666 would be the magical number for muslims.
We ain't seen nothing yet.
If Americans think these evil mooselimbs are holding bingo parties in all the mosques they've managed to erect in North America....they're going to be in for a surprise.
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.