Boiling to a head this week, and finally spilling over to American news outlet, is the brouhaha caused by the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, that printed cartoons depicting Mohammed, some in a bad light. Printing an image of Mohammed, even a good light, is a big no-no in Islam. Of course, many Muslims are upset as can be seen here. However, several other images of Mohammed have been printed elsewhere, some recently, without the fervour of this incident.
This isn't about cartoons. This is about Muslim groups trying to get Westerners to censor themselves....to never speak ill of Islam. Considering how tame these cartoons are, this is a test case. If Muslims can get Europe to silence themselves over this, then they will be less likely to challenge Muslims in the future.
However, even the Europeans may have finally reached their breaking point. I was happy to see other European newspapers reprinting these cartoons in a show of solidarity. Finally the Europeans are standing up to this attempt to make the West self-censor any complaints about Islam.
UPDATE (2/1/06): I may have spoken too soon. An editor of one of the French papers that reprinted the cartoons has been fired. France's DQ (Dhmmi Quotient...my new term) must be higher than that of Denmark.
UPDATE (2/3/06): Damn American government is "siding with the Muslims." I think the State Department has started to believe it's own nonesense about the "Religion of Peace."
UPDATE (2/6/06): Obviously Muslims have forgotten their own cartoons. I guess we all should ignore how brutal they are.
1 comment:
Re: the editor of France Soir. Does the owner of a newspaper have the right to fire the editor. I would suggest, given this blogs pro-capitalist view-point, that the answer could only be 'yes'. So what is the problem?
If there is a problem, it is that speech is free but access to an audience is expensive.
Why were there no such campaigns to defend free speech when George Michael's single 'Shoot the Dog' was not released in the US because it was controversially opposed to US (and UK) foreign policy? Or when radion stations refused to play the Dixie Chicks. Surely, all you crude free speechers ought have been circulating the single as a point of honour, regardless of your position with regard to its artistic quality or political message?
If not, then the right of an owner to control the media he owns does not extend to Muslims, and the demand for free speech only extends to the repeated publication of crude, racist cartoons. By positioning the argument as being one of 'free speech', you make yourselves stupid hypocrites. This is about the demonisation of Muslims, and by pretending that it is about free speech, it is an attempt to recruit the tolerant to march with the racists.
Post a Comment