Cartoons and Freedom of Speech

I saw this linked at Powerline. [I think.]

The writer has some pretty good points in the Op-Ed.

The key issue at stake in the battle over the 12 Danish cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad is this: Will the West stand up for its customs and mores, including freedom of speech, or will Muslims impose their way of life on the West? Ultimately, there is no compromise: Westerners will either retain their civilization, including the right to insult and blaspheme, or not.

More specifically, will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones. Are they entitled to dish it out while being insulated from similar indignities?

There is a point there. Especially when looking at the "official" statements later quoted in the press. I don't think that it was intelligent to print and disseminate these cartoons for the simple reason of civility. I think the same thing when I see anything disrespectful to someone's race. But the point here must be that Islam can't be allowed a free pass when they themselves commonly have derogatory press about other religions. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are still the most vigorously defended rights in this country and most English speaking countries. That's what makes these comments disturbing.

* Britain: "The republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful, and it has been wrong," Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said.

* New Zealand: "Gratuitously offensive," is how Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton described the cartoons.

* America: "Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable,"a State Department press officer, Janelle Hironimus, said.

I see nothing wrong with pointing out that the cartoons were "unnecessary" or "offensive" or "inciteful" but the topic itself included freedom of speech, and these mouth pieces completely missed the point. By completely avoiding that part of the issue they trivialized the western side of the conflict.

In 1989, Salman Rushdie came under a death edict from Ayatollah Khomeini for satirizing Muhammad in his magical-realist novel "The Satanic Verses." Rather than stand up for the novelist's life, President George H.W. Bush equated "The Satanic Verses" and the death edict, calling both "offensive." The then secretary of state, James A. Baker III, termed the edict merely "regrettable."

Even worse, in 1997 when an Israeli woman distributed a poster depicting Muhammad as a pig, the American government shamefully abandoned its protection of free speech. On behalf of President Clinton, a State Department spokesman, Nicholas Burns, called the woman in question "either sick or ... evil" and said, "She deserves to be put on trial for these outrageous attacks on Islam." The State Department endorses a criminal trial for protected speech? Stranger yet was the context of this outburst. As I noted at the time, having combed through weeks of State Department briefings, I "found nothing approaching this vituperative language in reference to the horrors that took place in Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands lost their lives. To the contrary, Mr. Burns was throughout cautious and diplomatic."

I don't recall these statements. Though I have to say I find them offensive now. Personally, I think an administration can dislike a persons statement, and should make statements with regards to them. It should also be understood that calls for retraction are allowable and at times necessary [Look at the calls for Pat Robertson to STFU]. But calling for trial for practicing a protected freedom is beyond the pale.

I'd say that calling for the deaths or cutting off the hands of the cartoonists are as offensive as the original cartoons. The expectations of reason in this case seems to have fallen on the floor. If the western way of life is to maintain its common values, it must practice those values and enforce them as well.

QandO has a decent entry on the topic.