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.
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.
What people don't realize, nor this author, is that whereever Islam is, so too will be "radical" or "militant" Islam. It's breeds itself among Islamic society and uses it as a hiding place. These people are cowards. Even the "peaceful" ones are cowardly b/c they don't even stand up to those that are making life miserable both for them and the rest of civilization.
Just as the slogan goes, "Not saying 'no' is just like saying 'yes'," so too, "peaceful" muslims that don't react sharply and harshly passively back "militant" or "radical" muslims.
Unlike this author suggests, the solution is to prevent the spread of Islam within any society that desires to live peacefully. Otherwise, the expectation is clear. Expect Islam, just as it has since its invention in the mid-first millenium, will seek to conquer, violently if necessary, take over, and oppress.
For the reality in that, all one has to do is look around the world and wonder and ask why Islamic countries are almost all decades if not centuries behind the times in human rights and general civility.
You got that right. Funny how not everyone is allowed in mosques, eh!
These are the reasons that nations, like the US, UK, Canada, etc. need to understand that these muslims have entered the country only to consolidate their bases within those stupid host nations.
"We come in peace. We come in peace."
Reminds one of the movie "Mars Attacks."
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. Nonsense. The cartoons are integral to the story that they are reporting. Obviously they were intimidated into NOT publishing them.
Describe victory to me, please.
I'll give you a clue: it involves the half of the Muslim population that are currently treated like chattel property.
(steely)
bttt
"Yet, even as they exploited these hard-won liberties, they were calling for them to be abolished."
Could be said about Hollywierd, also.
Mark Steyn's column today is even better.
From the direction of our enemies, no movement and pure silence.
Actually, islam has already defined both victory and defeat by its inherent requirement that islam must dominate the world. The world has only two options...accept islam's dominance (and be converted, subjugated or killed) or expose islam for the cult it is and erase it from the world.
["Behead those who Insult Islam", "Britain you will pay - 7/7 is on its way"
The folks carrying these two signs should've been arrested in my view. ]
I suspect something better happened. I suspect they were followed and named and someone right now is watching their little jihadi cells.
Jihadis will find
Sooner or later
Themselves worshipping
A glowing crater
Yet.
Both very interesting points.
I'm not sure who made the one you are responding to.
There are reasons why mosques around the world were commonly built like fortresses with thick stone walls. They knew that eventually the infidels would come with torches and pitchforks.
Jack Straw is an idiot and an absolute distaster as Foreign Secretary, equally as bad as he was as Home Secretary. Clarke is disaster, part deux.
Wonder where Tony Blair picks finds these clowns?
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.