The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) released a report on Denmark that—astoundingly—suggests that support for free speech in that country is proof of Danish of “intolerance”.
Allah excerpts this portion of the report concerning Danish Muslims, from the section headed “vulnerable groups”:
In September 2005, with the stated intention of verifying whether freedom of speech is respected in Denmark, a widely-read Danish newspaper called on cartoonists to send in caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad; such drawings are considered to be offensive by many Muslims. This newspaper thus published 12 such cartoons, one of which portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist. The issue has caused widespread condemnation and a protest march was organised in Copenhagen as a result. The fact that, according to a survey carried out regarding the publication of these drawings, 56% of the respondents felt that it was acceptable is a testimony of the current climate in Denmark. ECRI considers that the goal of opening a democratic debate on freedom of speech should be met without resorting to provocative acts that can only predictably elicit an emotional reaction.
Catch that little bit of progressive pretzel logic? Because it bears repeating: “ECRI considers that the goal of opening a democratic debate on freedom of speech should be met without resorting to provocative acts that can only predictably elicit an emotional reaction. Or, to put that in terms that are more direct, ECRI believes free speech is all fine and good, provided it is not so free that it upsets anyone’s sensibilities.
Which is to say, the ECRI is all for free speech, so long as it is constrained by a demand that the “free speech” in question be universally-agreed upon (or at least, universally non-upsetting to particular groups—which is the force behind phrases that demonize speech, such as worries about speech that will “predictably elicit an emotional reaction”; after all, true tolerance is about countenancing that emotional reaction, not about avoiding the elicitation of such a response).
I’ve expressed on too many occasions what I think are the predictable results of such ideas about speech when applied to classical liberalism: the primacy of the individual is deconstructed and replaced by an appeal to group politics, which essentially undermines the assumptions that underpin our entire foundational system of governance.
But in Europe, the results are even more unsettling:
If you thought that the Cartoon Jihad was over, think again.
Indeed, several European secret services are on the lookout for special Islamist commandos allegedly trying to kill the 12 Danish cartoonists involved in the Jyllands Posten Muhammad cartoons. Most probably, a European sleeper cell could be activated for that mission. Nonetheless, an entrance of dangerous Pakistani elements thru Turkey is envisioned.
In fact, a couple of Al Qaeda messages are warning of targeting the cartoonists along with some European countries.
Will America ever let it get this far?
Who knows? But one of the reasons I beat back against certain pernicious linguistic assumptions (currently, my battle is with Thersites, whose understanding of intepretation has proven thus far to be as predictable as it is superficial) is that these assumptions, once adopted and mainstreamed, can lead to philosophical concessions that may manifest themselves in public policy decisions and, ultimately, in an attitude of confused relativism that creates the conditions for surrendering one’s own principles for either safety or political expediency.
****
More, from Michelle Malkin, who notes, in the course of commending Harper’s for publishing the cartoons:
[…] the real travesty is left-wing refusal to comprehend the Islamic threat that predates the Crusades and runs through 9/11, Bali, Madrid, London, nuclear Iran, and the insane murders of 50 people by jihadists over a bunch of damned cartoons.
She has more here, as well.
related: LGF on the Harper’s story.
I understand what you’re saying here Jeff….but what do you really mean?
Well, if we’re allowed to start listing words for sacrifice on the altar, I say we start with the— an arrogant prick of a word if there ever was one, all singular and definitive and oh-so-much-better-than-me. Bastard.
“A” is so much softer and pliable.
The truth.A truth.There. I feel much less oppressed.
You mean like burning an embassy when some cartoon disagrees with your religious preferences?
Sorry, I can;t even mock the ECRI – I got nothing here. Just read the above post and shake your head in wonder…
I also like how in the summary description of the “cartoon affair”, they leave out the death threats the artists received…
‘cause after all, talking about death threats would likely elicit an emotional response.
Speaking of emotional reactions to speech, ThinkProgress gets its collective panties in a bunch over a colloquialism unrepentently uttered by Tony Snow yesterday.
They admit he uses the term “tar baby” to refer to a sticky situation but then proceed, inexplicably, to infer he must be a racist for using it.
Sometimes I think some folks are just allergic to logic.
Anyone want to wade into the many meanings of the Koran, and how they’re all truths?
tw: faith
Heh.
I like the reference to the Cursades at the end–that’s a piece of our cultural history that needs some revisiting.
As in, European Christians went to Jerusalem to REcapture it for Christianity. Because it was Christian before it was Muslim (and Jewish before that and Balish before that and…). How do the critics of the Crusades think Jerusalem got to be Muslim in the first place?
The only difference between the Crusades and just about every act of international consequence throughout most of human history is PR. The Crusaders needed better press agents.
The very kind of speech that needs to be free is the stuff that is provocative, else it wouldn’t need to be protected. I can figure that out so the ECRI can too. There is no other conclusion to draw than that they are deliberately blind about this. Amazing that they can have such short memories.
I’d tell you what I think, but after a quick Euro-reflection, I’m concerned it might upset someone in France.
So I will remain silent.
Forget the Euros and the French, CNation, you better worry about folks a little closer to home. You might piss off a cubs fan with your screen name.
Can’t have that.
Which is to say, the ECRI is all for free speech, so long as it is constrained by a demand that the “free speech†in question be universally-agreed upon (or at least, universally non-upsetting to particular groupsâ€â€which is the force behind phrases that demonize speech, such as worries about speech that will “predictably elicit an emotional reactionâ€Â; after all, true tolerance is about countenancing that emotional reaction, not about avoiding the elicitation of such a response).
Does that mean you support my burning an American flag in the village square? You’ll come dab me with salve after I’ve been beaten to a pulp by rednecks—er, patriots?
No, I do not support your flag burning, but since the SCOTUS has determined that the act is “protected speech”, I will defend your right to desecrate the flag.
I will support the apprehension and prosecution of any “patriots” that cause you bodily harm. That your act to me is despicable much like a bigot or racist is despicable, it is certainly your right to be despicable.
And no I would not apply salve – actually, I probably wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire.
Sorry to sound a little Said-y here, but:
A reminder to those forgetful of European politics’ eternal character as history’s greatest “genocidal ideation”â€â€
Leave while they’ll still let you.
Seriously.
They can’t stop themselves.
madjoey —
Unlike Ms. Clinton, I’m against legislation that would outlaw flag burning. Do a site search.
However, I’m sympathetic to those who might beat the shit out of you for doing it, though I would also support their arrest.
Mr. Costner, those library computers are for everyone to use.
Now I can just imagine that Thersites hosting computer is just dying to self immolate itself rather than put up with another smug self important, “aren’t we just special” screed.
TW: wish
rls sez:
That stuff spreads pretty nice with the heel of a jackboot, rls!
I’ll help you with that, joey. Just let me know when and where.
I notice that lefties here are not exactly jumping up to defend the First Amendment.
It speaks volumes, kids.
Tell me you did not expect a principled, consistent political stance from the Left. Oh…you did?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh my, does not Actus, the Larval Lawyer, still post here?
Anybody here, seen my old friend Actus, can you tell me where he/she/it’s gone… dadadada-dah-dah… principled stances… Abraham, Martin, and Actus…
<i>Which is to say, the ECRI is all for free speech, so long as it is constrained by a demand that the “free speech†in question be universally-agreed upon.</blockquote>
Reminds me of the ‘democratic’ mentality from Bulgaria decades ago. Each apartment building would have a set monthly meeting of its tenants, where the tenants would vote on any changes or alterations to the buildings, democracy-style.
However, before anyone could vote, everyone had to agree to all vote ‘yes’ or all vote ‘no.’ Otherwise, there could not be a vote. Thus, the communists were all for democracy, as long as there was no dissent.
The ECRI are a true piece of work. Multi-culti is increasingly discredited, yet to them it remains the Holy Grail of political and social outcomes.
When was the last time anyone was beaten to a pulp for burning the US Flag? Seriously, I haven’t seen that lately. Also I don’t think anyone has been killed for doing so in my lifetime… on the other hand there are tons of examples of violent action and even murder over stuff like the cartoons, so if you argue for flag burning why not slagging on Mohammed? Hell, slagging on religion has been a cottage industry in the West for centuries now…. why not “spread the love?” Or are some Animals… um… Religions more equal than other in terms of freedom of speech?
Gents, thanks for your reasoned responses. I mean that sincerely—maybe I haven’t been around here long enough to be able to determine what kind of conservatives y’all are, but I’m happy to see you’re not mindless Freepers with a “Murka-love-it-or-get-f*cked” attitude.
rls, thanks for the clarification between “support” and “defend”; properly done. And about not pissing on me even were I engulfed in flames? Classy.
Curious, though, about Bostonian’s assertion that Lefties are not jumping up to defend the First Amendment. Given that Actus is the only consistent Leftie here, and I’m new, you’ll have to give us a chance to coordinate our vast left-wing response.
In the meanwhile, I’ll appeal to your sense of American pride by saying that I think the Constitution is fucking awesome, and that the First Amendment kicks ass because I can say my dumb shit and you can say your dumb shit and at the end of the day, none of us is in an interrogation room. Pretty cool.