23 February 2006 >> Hopefully, these cartoons won’t get anyone killed. Or these.

23 February 2006 @ 9:17AM >> Although they often find themselves on opposite sides of the political divide, renowned legal scholar Alan Dershowitz and former advisor to two presidents Bill Bennett have come together to condemn the pitiful surrender of the press in the matter of the cartoon intifada:

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind — images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.

The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects — stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.

In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation’s efforts — and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike — the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.

But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London — never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles — included signs that read, “Behead those who insult Islam.” The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

[...]

What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists — their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.

So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and (b) if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.

[...]

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press — an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms — would be among the first to surrender.

23 February 2006 >> Reader Tim Coyne disagrees with my stance on the cartoon intifada:

I realize that we labor under the extant luxury of being ignorant of the sensitivities of the Muslim culture and approach. Reposting a cartoon that has been declared offensive under the guise of clarity is offensive. That ettiquette should be easily handled. The cartoon has been more fully explained than our Iraqi policy. The simple point is that the image of the prophet is not used by his adherents.

It’s been used by infidels. Nobody needs to publish it.

How many times do you explain a joke that disgusts your grandmother and friends? ‘Til they get it? ‘Til they submit to you and your filthy liberties rather than their own sensitivities? If they demonstrate a similar offense (the Virgin in elephant dung, the Infant of Prague masturbating, Christ on the cross as a flasher) are we all now just having a good time? Chuckle.

As for upbraiding a publisher for using sense, if not sensitivity, in deciding not to add fuel and redirect fire, perhaps if you posted your address (preferrably in a community well-represented by insulted Muslims), employed a largely open-door policy, built and posted a large sign and invited and encouraged a large staff to come and go at all hours under your assurance that all would be safe, you’d go through a few extra considerations before gratuitously piling on.

That boldness might be better spent and more honestly portayed in, say, interviewing young devout Muslim children on their views of what exactly is the coarseness of that (probably misguided cartoon)approach. Look for understanding rather than charges. Then, maybe you can extend some higher value rather than extol the baser performances.

I have a feeling this is one subject where we’re not going to end up agreeing.

If the cartoons had depicted Muhammad in a beaker of urine, I could understand people being offended. But the fact that the cartoons were so mild is a huge part of the story. None of them were any worse than your average political cartoon. Some of them were just depictions of Muhammad. And yet, they’ve led to dozens and dozens of murders around the world and untold destruction. Kind of makes you wonder what’ll happen when something makes them really mad!

Don’t get me wrong, Muslims have every right to be offended by the cartoons, however tame. We do not get to dictate what brings others offense. But the minute one person’s preferences are allowed to override another person’s freedom, you have just crossed the line into tyranny.

In free societies, the offended are able to vent steam by speaking out. Mobs don’t roam around the streets, randomly killing, setting buildings on fire, etc. Now, it is apparent that this does occur when people are offended in the Muslim world. These people obviously have different sensibilities.

But, we need to remember that Denmark is a sovereign country. Should the sensibilities of rampaging mobs in Libya get to dictate the bounds of speech in Denmark, or in any other western country where the cartoons were reprinted?

Because if we’re ready to cede our free speech rights when it comes to publishing political cartoons about Islam, what’s next? If it’s just easier to cave in and appease the mobs, what shall we do if the mobs decide that they don’t like an editorial that condemns the use of terrorism by radical Islamists? What then? Do we once again decide that we’d rather avoid all that unpleasantness and just keep our mouths shut?

Fascism has had many forms throughout history, but one pattern always repeats: weakness never leads to being left alone.