JayB

From The Economist: Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West AFP“I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong. Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law. No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred. Drawing the line In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them. Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”. Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case. In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments. It's good to talk It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations? No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict.

Not quite on-topic, but the skiing on Easter usually kicks ass. I think something like 5 out of the last 10 Easter Sundays on the mountain have been powder days, and there's been noooooooooooo ooooooooooooonnnnnnne out there. One Easter at Crystal was especially incredible. Probably the only time in my life that I'll double-over because of dual quad-cramps and still be smiling. Jesus really was my personal savior that day.

Looks like I forgot to punch in the zero. Too funny. I wonder who the big one-to-the-fourth was though. Guessing Timm@y.

I think deleted and or-banned users must account for the difference.

Registrations are at 9,991 and counting. What's the fabulous prize going to be for the big 1-to-the-fourth? #1242

ALL YOUR TEXT ARE BELONG TO US! What's the deal with the [edited by JayB] business when I'm not even a mod in this forum?

This Guy might not agree with you. Ditto for These Guys etc, etc, etc, etc. But especially this guy: Just be sure not to taint your mind by peering between the covers of this racist screed.... Ahh, so you are arguing that the majority of the black population (remember 85% didn't vote for Bush) doesn't know whats good for them. Nice to see you coming out as a smug condscending conservative. Just questioning the link between opposing AA and racism. Not accurate characterization of most people who harbor such beliefs IMO, and getting less and less effective as a substitute for convincing arguments with every passing year.

Just doing my part to make the world safe for fat jokes.

Ergo they are racist. Someone had better get Jimmy Carter on the phone so he can set them straight.

The "Obese Airline Traveler" problem has "Market Opportunity" written all over-it. My other random comment is that the distinction between fat people and the various people in the "not cool to make fun of" group is that it's commonly understood that the people in the latter group have absolutely no control over the traits that place them in the "not cool to make fun of category." Despite the abundance of special-pleading exerted on their behalf, and all of the mass-yearning to be relieved of any responsibility for this condition - the fact of the matter is that the ratio between calories consumed and calories expended is what ultimately determines whether or not one is obese. End of story. Thanks.

This Guy might not agree with you. Ditto for These Guys etc, etc, etc, etc. But especially this guy: Just be sure not to taint your mind by peering between the covers of this racist screed....

What's worse is that if this precedent were to be overturned, any insurance companies were forced to pay claims for damages on uncovered properties - the net result would be that most insurers would pull out of the market, people in Mississippi that could get insurance would be forced to pay more - and in the short-term cluster, the absence of insurance coverage would surely hold up a significant amount of reconstruction and delay the recovery/rebuilding efforts. No ticky, no laundry.

Though noone but you has yet brought up affirmative action, you really seem to want to tie this in here so here goes. I think there are probably many naysayers of affirmative action who have noble or, at least, non-racist motives. I also think that a politician taking a stand against affirmative action will appeal to racists on that basis. The previous two sentences are not contradictory. The border fence is a similar issue, though a little harder to defend with a non-racist straight face, and the smearing of John McCain is pure hate politics (I notice you didn't address that one). Is Bush deliberately pandering to the "racist vote" through policies and actions? Why yes, that is my premise! Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Do you think he's had a sincere change of heart or is simply afraid for his life?

Or...you are attempting to evade the clear implications of what you are writing, or are just aren't terribly good at using words in a manner that expresses what you are actually thinking. Thanks for trying though.

Well Matt, I'd have to disagree with your assertion that adding extra penalties to crimes with racial dimensions automatically renders one racist, as there are quite a few folks out there with politics that are fairly close to your own, that nonetheless oppose them on the grounds that it's not the governments job to determine which beliefs are more vile than others, or which beliefs its acceptable for anyone to hold. They harbor an intense dislike for racism, but don't think that it can or should be outlawed. The interesting thing about the Florida debacle is that a large measure of the confusion about who was a felon and who was not came about because the adminstrators declined to allow race as a category to help match names with criminal records - probably in order to avoid any claims that the process was designed to exclude anyone of a particular color. When it became clear just how innacurate they were, several counties gave up trying to figure out who could vote and who couldn't, and consequently felons of every color who should not have been able to vote didn't have to worry about anyone standing in their way. The rest of the points you raised about social policy et all don't seem like especially good candidates for proving racism either. By this logic, Clinton could be called racist for his efforts on behalf of welfare reform, etec.

So back to my original query - one's stance on things like afirmative action, immigration policy, etc are clear indicators of hatred for particular races, and voting one for them renders one part of the "racist vote?" Bush is deliberately calculating his policies to appeal to people for whom the primary determinant of their voting behavior is racism? Interesting viewpoint.

So....where does the racist part come in here? It's clear that you don't like the guy or his policies, but that's something rather different than proving that they are grounded in racist convictions. BTW-Neologism or O.E.D. on the "Anvilicious"?

Of course. It's the connection between these actions and the claims of racism that I'm not quite getting.

So elaborate on "Bush and the right-wing racist subgroup that he panders to" theme. Matt - maybe you can elaborate on the racist dimensions of Bush's policy thus far?

Can't say that I'm surprised by this sentiment, nor the blanket condemnation of anyone that objects to racial preferences as racist. While there are indeed people who base their objections ot racial preferences upon racist feelings, I don't think that one can syllogize that argument so that it applies to everyone who disagrees with them. Seems like an odd explanation for the passage of things like I-200 in a place like Washington, and would probably seem equally odd to this guy, and others like him: Link.

From the Big Pharoah: "To all my American friends, congratulations!!! Haven't you noticed it?? These days your country is not our villain anymore. Denmark is having its share of our flag burning parades. Sorry my Danish friends, but give these poor Americans a rest and take their place for a moment. I know you're generous. America, this is the time to celebrate." "Update: This post got some of the funniest comments I ever read. Here are just a few of the ones I liked: I don't know, BP. We're used to being #1. It took the work of many generations to put the "great" in Great Satan. It doesn't seem fair the Danes should just saunter in and take all that away from us with a few measly cartoons.But I suppose this must sound petty. Perhaps the Danes are entitled to enjoy their day in the sun. (JohnL) Well, we Danes have always joked about the lack of world wide knowledge about our country.But 12 small cartoons certainly changed all that.Sorry to all you Americans for working so hard all these years to stay on top of the Most Hated list. (Marianne) we're not number 1 anymore?? C'mon US.. we're gonna have to work harder!! Look out, Denmark, the we'll get our title back from you yet!! (jw) Enjoy your time in the spotlight Denmark, I can assure you, we are probably only one step away from pissing off the world again. (t) I'm really frustrated. I was praying Holland would for once be the Great Satan, but we are as usual being ignored. (Infidel) Hey, you've goot to admit the "death to the U.S.A" chant was getting old. "Death to Denmark" however is as fresh as can be, not to mention absurd and utterly pathetic. It really does sound like something out of a monthy python sketch. (Einherjar ) Hold it!You mean America in no longer NUMBER ONE???!!!Oh, how the mighty Satan has fallen!Pushed aside in the Great Infidel Smack-down by TINY DENMARK!Gosh, the SHAME I fell as a patriotic American! (Jeffery) lol.It's an American day of rest! Enjoy it, my fellow countrymen, because tomorrow, we will surely have to get back on that horse. (C MAR II) We invaded somebody and somebody took the top spot with a fricken cartoon? Is it my imagination or are there always people in the middle east burning flags? (Mike) We are happy to have some relief. It is hard work being the Great Satan of the World for 26 years straight! (Original Jeff) YEAAAAAA!!!! How long do we get? A week? WOW, we've never had a vacation before. (Tina) if the U.S. just wanted to be hated, why couldn't we have published cartoons, rather than send in troops? It would have been sooo much cheaper! (Solomon2)"

I think it would be more akin to a soldier's relative using the funeral-pulpit at the burial service to berate the people in the audience who were opposed to the war, but came to show their respects. Of course when a national figure passes away it makes sense to reflect on their life, their causes, etc - but IMO using the occaision of the funeral to berate people in the audience is poor form. Plenty of time for that once the service has concluded. My opinion - that's all.

Could be worse. You could be looking at a 6" manmade base that's been through about 20 freeze-thaw cycles covering acres and acres of crowded groomers. Count your blessings.

Seems like it covered the recent chronology and the social climate reasonably well. What were you hoping for more emphasis on?