“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
So this is where we stand, with Voltaire’s noble words about intellectual freedom and the right to contemplate and openly discuss orthodoxies and heresies of any sort, with an eye towards seeing that they stand or fall, strengths and weaknesses dissected and revealed. A former President of these united States, whose grasp of the concept of intellectual freedom is as apparently as shaky as his grip on marriage vows, appears to interpret belief in it to mean that a certain favored class of adherents to a particular orthodoxy are free from ever having those beliefs challenged, criticized, mildly mocked, or even having their feelings hurt. Such is the state of their tender sensitivities, this class must be treated with special regard, their core beliefs never questioned… or as it turns out, illustrated.
One might, with a great deal of experience and cynicism, suspect that a large part of this exaggerated deference is mostly due to the very high probability that self-styled representatives of the offended orthodoxy will show up at the door of the affronting party, singly or in force, wielding sharp weapons, explosive items, fatwas, lawsuits, serious armaments, or merely shrill accusations of racism and prejudice, according to the inclination, location and experience of the offended parties. One might also suspect that not a few intellectual, political and cultural establishments might have already made a quick calculation of the risks and benefits and preemptively rolled over, and quietly began self-censoring themselves. Speaking truth to power might really have some risks, best be sure that the power spoken to is either defanged or merely rolls its’ eyes derisively at yet another dreary polemic by Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone or John LeCarre. Best not say anything at all about the “religion of peace” lest the gentlemen with sharp knives be forced to demonstrate their imperfect acceptance of the Western tradition of open debate and dissent.
There is an old saying, to the effect that the most binding chains are the ones we put on ourselves. And the most insidious and effective censorship is that kind that we also put on ourselves, the censorship that strangles the question before it can even be asked. And that might be one of the points raised by the editor of the Jyllands-Posten all these months ago; that thoughtful people, earnestly wishing to be polite, tolerant and sensitive of others, began moving down that path that eventually ends— if we are not aware— with our wrists humbly held up for the manacles of imposed censorship to be firmly snapped on. A drift that began with good manners ends with limits imposed by maladroit legislation or a baying mob, maybe even both, and all the important issues of the day, which ought to be discussed— vociferously, noisily and with all the thrown crockery at our disposal— are removed from the arena where they ought to be, to fester and simmer away in odd corners. What has been more insupportable in recent years, is that our courtesy in this respect is not even reciprocated: the vilest sort of caricatures and insult imaginable regarding Westerners, Christians, Jews, Americans and others too varied to mention have free and frequent circulation in Moslem and Arab-oriented and funded media.
One does wonder about a religion and culture so sensitive of insult, yet so free about dealing it out wholesale and by the bucket to others?
Is this Prophet and belief set so fragile that the merest whisper of non-adoration, of criticism and caricature will shatter it, irrevocably? Are its dutiful defenders secretly in such fear of that shattering, of the doubt that might be raised by any breath of irrelevance in a country which pays allegiance to another tradition, that the doors of dissent from orthodoxy must be slammed shut on parody, criticism, literary hyperbole, and scholarly analysis?
Umm, no. I think not. Not here. Not now. The strength of the West is in that very noisy disputation, our freedom to put everything on the table, to question, to non-conform, and by disputation and argument, make our beliefs even stronger for having all the idiocy knocked out of them. As such has been our custom, and in the reported words of Martin Luther, at the Diet of Worms: “Since your majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason–I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other–my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise, God help me. Amen.”
Everything is on the table. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. These are the cartoons, here is a good link, curtesy of Samizdata. (Later: More discussion here…. oh, and buy Danish!!!!)
The left caving in to the Islamists proves what many of us have been saying about them for a long, long time. The left thought “Piss Christ” was great art that I should have been happy to be forced to pay for. “Cartoons of the Prophet” would be opening in every left wing art house in the free, Christian world if the “Prophet” was Christian.
Comment by tyree — 20060201 @ 2108
The cartoons can be found here.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20060202 @ 0058
Now it’s going out over the net that the eitor of the French paper that stood with the Danes has been fired because he printed the cartoons as well and the publisher ran an apology to Moslems for the insensitivity. Someone needs to pick that guy up and hose the former paper.
Comment by RhinoKeeper — 20060202 @ 1050
A big thumbs up!
And the French? They’re the masters of the white flag.
Comment by Terry — 20060202 @ 1223
My own particular revolt is that I solidly refuse to put the use of capitalized letters to anything even remotely referring to the “holy” religion of the rapist, robber, thief, and murdering so-called prophet. Damn the muslims to hell already. And I don’t give a rat’s a$$ what they say about me. I have a nice shotgun at the ready to repel invaders.
So there.
Comment by Joe Comer — 20060203 @ 0907
As for myself, while I did post that cartoon for Sgt. Mom, I don’t think I’d do it personally. This is out of willing respect for my Muslim friends and clients - all Indian, Pakistani, and Persian (they refuse to call themselves “Iranian”).
Yes, they are Muslim. But, as immigrants, they are a “American” as you or I.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20060203 @ 1412
Think you might be on to something there Kevin. Most of us can enjoy freedom of speech without feeling the need to demonstrate it in an offensive a manner as possible; by all means sit on your porch drinking your moonshine Joe, but put the shotgun down eh? You might hurt yourself, and I don’t think the muslims (sic) are going to come looking for you down in Georgia. Among those of us, however, who aren’t living in the festering arse crack of nowhere, the “bring it on” mentality is rather thinner on the ground.
It is possible to respect one another without compromising our freedom of expression; re-printing this cartoon served no purpose. And isn’t protesting against it just another means of free expression? Then again, in a world of absolutes where peace demonstrations are beyond the pale, it seems that ‘freedom’ may be a one-way street.
Comment by Robin — 20060203 @ 1622
Well, Robin, you certainly feel free enough to insult Joe with a rather nasty set of assumptions— perhaps the reason you feel free to do so is your own assumption that he will not actually show up at your door with a collection of moon-shine-swilling, shot-gun bearing friends to take exception to your lack of appreciation for his values?
Away down along Border-way, the story in my local paper has been that reporters in the Nueva Laredo area (which is just across the border into Mexico, BTW) don’t dare publish any stories that are in any way critical of the cross-border drug-smuggling gangs; too many of those newspaper writers and staff have been murdered in extremely gruesome and public ways… wasn’t there the same sort of thing going in in Northern Ireland, some woman named Guerin, or something?
The Danish newspaper did it to prove a point, which is— no one dare publish anything critical, or even derisive of The Prophet— and if you’re afraid to publish something, which someone might take offense at, and react in anyway harmful to yourself or other people… well, then, it’s not really a free press then, is it?
Either publish, and damn the consequences, and call yourself a free press… Or not.
And if your publication caves, avoids, or colors certain stories lest the government come down and slap you on the nose, or your reporters be murdered in the streets, or you don’t have “access” to certain countries, or your reporter get hauled off to a unmarked grave or a mental hospital somewhere… at least have the decency to not advertise yourself as a “free press”.
Frankly, I think George Monbiot is a waste of flesh, but I rather doubt his fans at the Guardian are mobbing up with torches and pitchforks in the street in front of my house. Wish the reporters at the Jylland-Post could say the same about the same people they have criticised.
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20060203 @ 1942
An addendom for Robin, on the matter of a free press— the words of William Lloyd Garrison (to spare you the trouble of looking him up, he was the editor of a particularly ferocious anti-slavery newspaper, in the days before our own dear Civil War)
“I am aware that many object to the severity of my language, but is there not cause for severity? I will be harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not with to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to sound a moderate alarm…but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present…
I am in earnest–I will not equivocate–I will not excuse–I will not retreat a single inch–AND I WILL BE HEARD.”
And WLS wrote this when abolitionists were having a rough time, generally, in places where slavery was the done thing, and law enforcement tended to side with those who viewed escaped slaves as errant property. I don’t think he worried about slave owners being offended.
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20060203 @ 2108
Nice stab at moral equivalence, Robin. Good call, Joe’s obviously a lot more dangerous sitting on his porch drinking ’shine than are mobs of thugs threatening death to infidels.
You don’t really deserve the freedoms you have, but the great thing is, you still get to enjoy them. So long as there are people willing to pay the price for them, you get to piggyback (uh-oh, is that phrase offensive to adhernets of the retarded death cult posing as one of the world’s great religions?) on their efforts.
We do appreciate your sanctimonious and condescending lectures, although I always wonder why you bother, since none of us are really worth your time. Are you honing your arguments in order to debate you rhouseplants?
Comment by Steve Skubinna — 20060203 @ 2141
I want to reiterate that my choices are a reflection of my personal values. And one value I hold most strongly is the right of others to voice theirs. If Joe wants to sit on his porch with his ’shine and 12-gauge - so long as he doesn’t go blastin’ everyone on the sidewalk in a hajib or shumagg (and he saves a tin for me, should I come a callin’), I’m behind him all the way.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20060203 @ 2323
There’s apparently speculation that the release by the State Department’s bogus. From lgf: State Department Criticism of Cartoons - a Hoax?
Three different names, three different news organizations. Janelle Hironimus with the State Department is apparently stationed in Cuba, according to Google. Don’t know why she’d be making a statement like this. Kurtis Cooper is with the State Department - on the Mexico beat, according to the latest I’ve found on Google. And Justin Higgins seems to be on the Iranian desk… I think.
Why do I think they just grabbed a name from a State Department listing and attributed what they wanted said to that person?
For cryin’ out loud, I know BDS is pretty powerful stuff, but advocating self-censorship in the name of the goverment - and then attributing those statements to folks in the State Department (who may or may not have had anything to do with the statement) is just sheer lunacy. Keepthis up, and the jihadis won’t have to lift a finger to cut our throats - the media will do it themselves… and gladly.
J.
Comment by JLawson — 20060204 @ 0006
“The arse crack of nowhere?” Good God, Robin, you must live in paradise. But that’s not my opinion of the UK.
While I did very much enjoy my tour there, saw lots of history and neat stuff, I damn near froze to death! The first thing I found out about the Brits is, they don’t believe in heat, a fact I found out on the bus from Heathrow to Mildenhall. And the latrine in the barracks? Yikes!
It’s obvious that Robin has not had the lovely experience of visiting many different lands, as have I been so blessed to do. Now, I don’t like to defend Georgia, it’s too hot and humid in the summer, and the weather in the winter can be downright nasty. I rather prefer Colorado or New England, but I’m stuck here for right now.
Oh, and Robin: I don’t drink alcoholic beverages of any kind - that’s not a judgement, just my free choice.
The shotgun is for defense only. That’s just in case a pod of vicious islamist terrorists show up on my doorstep in anger after I refused to kowtow to them. You see, Robin, most Americans are really peaceful folk. We have never gone to war in order to expand our borders, or to get gold or other resources. We usually do so to defend our allies who need our help.
Robin, you really should get out more!
Comment by Joe Comer — 20060204 @ 0139
“We have never gone to war in order to expand our borders, or to get gold or other resources.”
Well, Joe, in the case of the Mexican War, or La invasión yanqui, as they call it south of the border, you can’t really say that.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20060204 @ 0201
Kevin, you’re right, but that was really an aberration. I’m speaking in more general terms.
Comment by Joe Comer — 20060204 @ 0505
Dang it, here we go again. I just finished shoveling out a ton of slime from the comments section, it was up to my knees! Stand by while I spray some lysol!
Comment by Joe Comer — 20060204 @ 0509
LOL
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20060204 @ 0819
Would you guys defend someone’s right if that person chooses to publish child porn and/or nazi propagandas and/or dead military soldiers’ pictures?
Comment by C-Fu — 20060211 @ 1155
No problem with the latter two. But kiddie porn is another matter.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20060211 @ 1222
My, oh my, C-Fu, what an interestingly loaded question, carefully constructed so as to elicit an obvious answer, and hopefully give you a consistancy with which to play “gotcha” … all attached to last weeks’ post which has all but fallen off the end of the page, and hasn’t had any comments in days.
So, how do you feel about kiddie porn, Nazi propaganda and pictures of military coffins?
Comment by Sgt. Mom — 20060211 @ 1621