Muhammad cartoon 'has taken on life of its own'

[Bragi]

Danish artist who published offending caricature now leads 'an existence that is full of angst'

By Charles Ferro, Agence France-Presse November 16, 2010

A Danish cartoonist who sparked Muslim outrage with a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad said Monday his life had become "full of angst" since the image was published five years ago...

"I lead an existence that is full of angst, although I am protected."

Westergaard stressed Monday the importance of publishing content even if there is sure to be a backlash, lamenting the increase of self-censorship since his drawing first appeared.

"If there is anything to regret (about publishing the cartoon) it is that there is more self-censorship in intellectual circles since this began," he said.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Muhammad+cartoon+taken+life/3833753/story.html

-------------

I agree with his observation that the violence and killing over the cartoons by Muslim fundamentalists has resulted in more self-censorship in places that otherwise respect free speech.

Right now, the fundamentalists are winning the free speech versus blasphemy battle. Like, for example, when American cartoonist Molly Norris was forced to go into hiding earlier this year, and almost no major American news outlet reported it.

I feel shame and sadness that we have been intimidated into silence. It doesn't bode well.

[Bragi]

1. And the humungous lack of interest prevails

I once again get the sense that no-one here much wants to think about how Muslim fundamentalists have silenced critics in the West.

I suspect this is because this reality conflicts too much with our preferred narrative, wherein the West is reliably the villain, and the Muslim fundamentalists always get assigned the role of downtrodden victims.

In my view, this is why, at this time, the right wing in America basically owns most free speech issues, while the left remains silent.

If you don't believe me, just ask American cartoonist Molly Norris.

Oh wait, you can't ask her anything, since she was forced into hiding a few months ago due to death threats from Muslim fundamentalists.

Nothing to see here, it's just one of the most un-reported news stories ever, move along now...

[notesdev]

2. I care

But you're right, it's damn lonely these days on the left as a free speech supporter. People are all too willing to see speech they don't like censored and punished, regardless of the consequences for their own freedom of speech. And the death threats to news media as a way of getting them to censor themselves is downright chilling.

[Bragi]

4. Thanks for reaching out

You're right, it's quite lonely these days being a free speech advocate on the left.

I too find it remarkable how many people on this board are so quick to advocate and even celebrate censorship of views they don't like.

[DirkGently]

6. I agree the Muslim extremist threats threaten free speech. Problem is, the issue gets tangled

up in bigoted arguments we hear every day that Islam is therefore an evil religion which must itself be censored and / or destroyed, preferably by Christianity. It's hard for people to separate legitimate critique from zero-sum arguments that reduce everything to diametric opposition.

Liberals end up defending Islam, because the louder noise in the U.S. is not legitimate condemnation of repulsive extremist religious practices, but the idea that we need to engage in a worldwide religious conflict between "good" Christianity and Americans and "bad" Muslims and foreigners and therefore that we need, for example, to suppress peaceful American Muslims looking to build a community center in New York. Or that our endless, business-driven wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan are justified by a need for America to somehow take on the task of eliminating extremist Islam wherever we find it. Or perhaps Islam, period.

Conservative Americans, for example, once lauded things like chopping off the hand of a thief ("They don't have no shoplifters over there, I'll tell you what!). Now it's suggested that barbaric practices like that justify American torture of "detainees," etc.

We ought to be able discuss actions on their merits, without always struggling to draw some broad conclusion over a group of people, but it's tough to do in our dumbed-down political environment.


edited syntax for.

[Bragi]

7. Yep

You highlight the fact that, in our "dumbed-down political environment" we are asked to pick between those arguing that "All Muslims are evil" and those who say: "No Muslims are evil."

The idea that "some Muslims" may be bad actors and a real threat is too easily dismissed by the left as, at best, closeted racism.

Meanwhile for the right, the refusal to declare "all Muslims" as being a threat is reviled as a form of "stealth Islamism."

The result is a non-debate where both sides assure their supporters that the other side is mendacious and malicious, and where anyone with a more nuanced viewpoint is dismissed as a fool.

<Sigh...>

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. I completely agree with you

Including your spot-on assessment for why this post is dead in the water at DU. K&R.

[Bragi]

5. A Question...

You noted your agreement that this thread is "dead in the water at DU."

My question is this: Do you (or anyone reading this) know of any discussion forums where free speech is discussed intelligently, and which aren't totally dominated by right-wingers?

My intention isn't to leave DU because I think it's important to defend free speech here (at least as long as we're allowed to) and I'm pretty much onside with most of the consensus views here on other matters.

But I wouldn't mind having an online place to go where left-leaning free speech advocates could discuss relevant issues as they arise.

[msanthrope]

8. What chaps my ass are the threads that handwring over Anwar al-Aulaqi, yet

no one wants to talk about what he did to get his ass on Obama's hit list...

Besides Fort Hood and the various other bomb attempts, the bastard put a fatwa out on Molly Norris, for drawing a cartoon.

For drawing a frackin' cartoon, she's facing death.

So yeah, let's handwring over a fucking terrorist--

[Bragi]

11. That's something I feel a bit conflicted on

I have no doubt that Anwar al-Aulaqi is a bad actor, and that the world would be a better place without him.

Having said that, I gather the death sentence Obama enacted on him was done (I think) through executive order, with no judicial or Congressional oversight at all.

I think the idea of a President on his own ordering the execution of an American citizen is contrary to the notion of the rule of law.

If there was some kind of oversight here, however, then I'd have no problem seeing him hunted down and either brought back for trial (the preferred option) or killed (if there is no other option.)

[msanthrope]

13. The only oversight I was able to find was the mention of

a National Security Council review. This does not solve the issue of oversight, however, since the Executive branch retains all control.


Now, Anwar does have the option of surrendering to the Hague...but he won't.

[Bragi]

14. Yes, oversight is an issue

Having said that, Obama is right going after the guy, I just wish he would do so in a manner that reflected standard legal norms.

In this case, it would simply mean a judge or oversight committee reviewing the evidence and concurring with the executive order.

Frankly, that isn't much to ask, and would show a real break with the practices of the scofflaw Bush administration.

[Edweird]

9. KnR

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

10. K&R

I am sick and tired of the black and white no gray area bullshit of this issue. Religious fanatics who suppress free speech with violence need to be condemned.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Word. People rightfully condemn Fred Phelps, et al., but remain silent about....

....the Muslim versions of the Phelps family- out of some misguided attempt to not appear bigoted, I would guess.