thedrifter
02-13-06, 06:52 AM
Surrendering Freedom of Speech: Terrorism Works
Written by Joe Mariani
Monday, February 13, 2006
The essential premise of terrorism is this: fear of organized, purposeful violence can drastically change the way people act. If people fear an attack, they will change the way they shop, travel, dress, vote, or even speak. Actual violence may not even be necessary, once the habit of appeasement becomes ingrained. Eventually, people will automatically modify their own behavior so as not to “cause trouble.” Terrorism is schoolyard bullying on the grandest scale. And as we can see from the response to the sudden wave of violence over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, terrorism works.
The European Union and the United Nations are fighting to lead the surrender, it seems. As a result of the violence, the European Union is considering whether to create a “code of conduct” that will encourage the media to show “prudence” when covering religion. EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini told the Daily Telegraph: “The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression... We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.” U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “Honestly, I do not understand why any newspaper will publish the cartoons today. It is insensitive. It is offensive. It is provocative and you see what has happened around the world.” Keep your heads down, in other words. Don’t do anything to make them mad. See what happens when you do things they don’t like?
Individual European countries are also rushing to appease the angry Islamists. French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication of the cartoons as “overt provocation,” and said that any subject matter that could hurt other people’s convictions should be avoided. (Don’t hold your breath waiting for French--or any--newspapers to stop printing anti-American editorials and cartoons.) The Swedish government went so far as to shut down the web site of a newspaper that published cartoons depicting Mohammed. Don’t make waves. Don’t attract their attention. Just do as they say.
Here in America, supposedly the home of free speech, our own government condemned the cartoons, missing a priceless opportunity to stand up for basic freedoms. “We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive,” said Sean McCormack of the State Department. Doesn’t any government have the backbone to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press?
The common view is that all Muslims are offended by images of the prophet. Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist and author, easily refuted that position in a Wall Street Journal editorial. His article reminds us that no such historical prohibition on images of Mohammed or on religious humor exists in Islam, and that the protests are sponsored by governments (like Syria) and extremist groups who take themselves too seriously. “Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade,” Taheri pointed out. Many depictions of Mohammed exist in Islamic art.
The New York Times and CNN both refused to show the “offensive” Danish cartoons. The mainstream media giants cited various reasons for restraint, ranging from “showing respect for religion” to “not wishing to add fuel to the controversy.” Most newspapers and television stations followed their example. The New York Sun was one of the few newspapers in America with the courage to print the cartoons in question. The Philadelphia Inquirer was another. Some individuals showed backbone, though: the entire editorial staff of the New York Press resigned when permission to print the cartoons was refused. The media giants more or less capitulated to terrorism, however.
In order to illustrate the news story about the riots, the New York Times did publish one picture: a piece of “art” featuring the Virgin Mary covered in dung. This despite the Times’ claim to “refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols.” CNN aired cartoons from Arab newspapers to highlight the story, featuring hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of Muslim children, controlling the United States, falsifying history, and so on. Those kinds of pictures won’t anger radical Muslims, so the mainstream media feels free to show them.
How can so many be so willing to surrender so many rights as a result of a “controversy” that was so obviously manufactured? The cartoons were first published in September 2005, and were answered by a small but peaceful demonstration. The cartoons were even published in Egypt with no real outcry. There were a few diplomatic protests made by Islamic nations, but that was all.
Then Ahmad Abu Laban, leader of the Islamic Society in Denmark, toured the Middle East showing the actual cartoons alongside severa truly offensive images that he falsely claimed were common portrayals of Mohammed in the West. The worst “Mohammed” image was actually a newspaper photo from the 2005 French Pig-Squealing Championship, during which a bearded contestant was photographed wearing a pig’s snout and ears. In areas controlled by dictators or where radical Islam holds sway,--places where access to information is tightly restricted--violence flared. Suddenly crowds were burning Danish flags on every street corner, attacking embassies, and promising “Death to those who insult Islam.”
Instead of standing up for itself, the West is already beginning to engage in self-proscription designed to appease the self-proclaimed enemies of free speech. If the European Union begins passing official guidelines to prevent anything upsetting to radical Muslims from being published, how long will it be before the European government begins actively censoring anything that might provoke an attack? And how long before people here in America begin modifying their own behavior and dress codes to prevent radical Muslims from getting angry? Would you wear a T-shirt with a joke about Jesus on it? Sure you would. Would you wear a shirt bearing one of the Danish cartoons?
We’re engaged in a global war on terrorism. Our enemies are radical, violent, fanatic Islamofascists who virtually enslave women, brainwash children and behead or blow up innocents just to make a point. Their aim is to destroy democracy and bring the entire world under the barbaric yoke of shari’a law by use of fear. If we’re so worried about offending their delicate sensibilities, and so fearful of their retribution that we’re willing to give up our most essential freedoms to appease them, we might as well submit now and accept dhimmitude.
About the Writer: Joe Mariani is a computer consultant and freelance writer who lives in Pennsylvania. His website is available at: guardian.blogdrive.com.
Ellie
Written by Joe Mariani
Monday, February 13, 2006
The essential premise of terrorism is this: fear of organized, purposeful violence can drastically change the way people act. If people fear an attack, they will change the way they shop, travel, dress, vote, or even speak. Actual violence may not even be necessary, once the habit of appeasement becomes ingrained. Eventually, people will automatically modify their own behavior so as not to “cause trouble.” Terrorism is schoolyard bullying on the grandest scale. And as we can see from the response to the sudden wave of violence over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper, terrorism works.
The European Union and the United Nations are fighting to lead the surrender, it seems. As a result of the violence, the European Union is considering whether to create a “code of conduct” that will encourage the media to show “prudence” when covering religion. EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini told the Daily Telegraph: “The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression... We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.” U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “Honestly, I do not understand why any newspaper will publish the cartoons today. It is insensitive. It is offensive. It is provocative and you see what has happened around the world.” Keep your heads down, in other words. Don’t do anything to make them mad. See what happens when you do things they don’t like?
Individual European countries are also rushing to appease the angry Islamists. French President Jacques Chirac condemned the publication of the cartoons as “overt provocation,” and said that any subject matter that could hurt other people’s convictions should be avoided. (Don’t hold your breath waiting for French--or any--newspapers to stop printing anti-American editorials and cartoons.) The Swedish government went so far as to shut down the web site of a newspaper that published cartoons depicting Mohammed. Don’t make waves. Don’t attract their attention. Just do as they say.
Here in America, supposedly the home of free speech, our own government condemned the cartoons, missing a priceless opportunity to stand up for basic freedoms. “We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive,” said Sean McCormack of the State Department. Doesn’t any government have the backbone to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press?
The common view is that all Muslims are offended by images of the prophet. Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist and author, easily refuted that position in a Wall Street Journal editorial. His article reminds us that no such historical prohibition on images of Mohammed or on religious humor exists in Islam, and that the protests are sponsored by governments (like Syria) and extremist groups who take themselves too seriously. “Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade,” Taheri pointed out. Many depictions of Mohammed exist in Islamic art.
The New York Times and CNN both refused to show the “offensive” Danish cartoons. The mainstream media giants cited various reasons for restraint, ranging from “showing respect for religion” to “not wishing to add fuel to the controversy.” Most newspapers and television stations followed their example. The New York Sun was one of the few newspapers in America with the courage to print the cartoons in question. The Philadelphia Inquirer was another. Some individuals showed backbone, though: the entire editorial staff of the New York Press resigned when permission to print the cartoons was refused. The media giants more or less capitulated to terrorism, however.
In order to illustrate the news story about the riots, the New York Times did publish one picture: a piece of “art” featuring the Virgin Mary covered in dung. This despite the Times’ claim to “refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols.” CNN aired cartoons from Arab newspapers to highlight the story, featuring hook-nosed Jews drinking the blood of Muslim children, controlling the United States, falsifying history, and so on. Those kinds of pictures won’t anger radical Muslims, so the mainstream media feels free to show them.
How can so many be so willing to surrender so many rights as a result of a “controversy” that was so obviously manufactured? The cartoons were first published in September 2005, and were answered by a small but peaceful demonstration. The cartoons were even published in Egypt with no real outcry. There were a few diplomatic protests made by Islamic nations, but that was all.
Then Ahmad Abu Laban, leader of the Islamic Society in Denmark, toured the Middle East showing the actual cartoons alongside severa truly offensive images that he falsely claimed were common portrayals of Mohammed in the West. The worst “Mohammed” image was actually a newspaper photo from the 2005 French Pig-Squealing Championship, during which a bearded contestant was photographed wearing a pig’s snout and ears. In areas controlled by dictators or where radical Islam holds sway,--places where access to information is tightly restricted--violence flared. Suddenly crowds were burning Danish flags on every street corner, attacking embassies, and promising “Death to those who insult Islam.”
Instead of standing up for itself, the West is already beginning to engage in self-proscription designed to appease the self-proclaimed enemies of free speech. If the European Union begins passing official guidelines to prevent anything upsetting to radical Muslims from being published, how long will it be before the European government begins actively censoring anything that might provoke an attack? And how long before people here in America begin modifying their own behavior and dress codes to prevent radical Muslims from getting angry? Would you wear a T-shirt with a joke about Jesus on it? Sure you would. Would you wear a shirt bearing one of the Danish cartoons?
We’re engaged in a global war on terrorism. Our enemies are radical, violent, fanatic Islamofascists who virtually enslave women, brainwash children and behead or blow up innocents just to make a point. Their aim is to destroy democracy and bring the entire world under the barbaric yoke of shari’a law by use of fear. If we’re so worried about offending their delicate sensibilities, and so fearful of their retribution that we’re willing to give up our most essential freedoms to appease them, we might as well submit now and accept dhimmitude.
About the Writer: Joe Mariani is a computer consultant and freelance writer who lives in Pennsylvania. His website is available at: guardian.blogdrive.com.
Ellie