[DEBATE] : Re: Better claim it as savage

[MFleshman at aol.com]

Peter wrote: 
 
OK, M, but I found it rather well-stated.

So, apart from this  particular problem, what is your general 
alternative, or
who has  formulated a position that you prefer?


Clearly those cartoons have touched a widely and justifiably held sense of  
grievance throughout the Muslim world, but I have to believe that the real 
issue  is not the cartoons
or of their derogatory content but the political context  -- invasion, 
occupation (Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq at least), torture and  murder, repressive 
comprador regimes, marginalization and alienation of Muslim  expat communities 
and culture in the West -- into which the cartoons arrive. 
 
I saw yesterday a UK press report, for example, that described 
Brit  troops in Afghanistan, coming to the rescue of Danish troops 
threatened by  the cartoon protests. The article missed the 
point, which was not the  cartoons or the protests, but that, 4  years 
after the overthrow of the Taliban and long after the US 
lost interest  in Osama, UK and Danish troops are still occupying 
Afghanistan.  Why  were they there to be protested against in the first 
place?  Not all  grievances are equally equally grievous

. Redress the substantive  injuries and I think the cartoons pass with a few 
perfunctory denunciations  from some hypocritical governments and some 
dignified expressions of disgust  and dismay from the Muslim community 
in Denmark. or so I would  hope.

But I think there are valid free speech issues involved. when the  
publisher of a children's book on tolerance can't find illustrators  
because they fear violent attack -- and who can blame them after the  
Salmon Rushdie and the murder of the Dutch artist theo van gogh 
-- there is a real problem. 
 
Were those cartoons  the  best way to respond to these ugly  incidents
of violent suppression of free expression? no. But Simon Jenkins' 
solution --censor yourself before the government does -- is far worse. It  
only 
guarantees and justifies the suffocation of free speech. If ridicule of  
religion 
is to be off-limits why not politicians, or entertainers or lawyers  too?