Defending the Rights of Free Press & Assembly

Fire of Liberty

As I watch the Muslims of the world setting Danish embassies on fire in the Middle East, protesting in the streets of western capitals calling for the death of newspaper editors who dare to run cartoons that somehow defames Mohammed, I'm shocked at how violence prone some folks can be when someone makes some comment or reference about a group or religion. For us in the West, we are used to people offering some kind of editorial comment or poke some fun at a religion because we have something either written down in our constitutions or laid out in our laws that provides our citizens(even non-citizens) the right to freely express one's opinion about others. What's even better is that we also have well established rights to freely protest such comments in our streets through peaceful means. Unfortunately the folks who have taken to the streets and have set embassies on fire (Attacking an embassy is considered an act of War), issued bomb threats, or who walk around the Western capitals dressed like terrorists calling for the deaths of folks who print such cartoons or that another 9/11 is in store for the West(This pretty hurts the respectful Muslims who promote the "religion of peace" line) not to mention folks carrying banners like these:










they have crossed a barrier beyond free speech/expression/assembly and ventured into the incitement of violence and bodily harm to others. (Thank goodness no-one was killed in the torching of the Danish embassies.)I'd say that maybe the people who rally in the streets with as much energy and madness over some cartoons of their profit would use it against their fellow Muslims who strap bombs to their chest to kill innocents in Iraq, Israel and the rest of the world then Islam would be better off. I think London's Daily Telegraph summed the whole situation up best in the following paragraphs in today's leader(Op/Ed)(Registration needed)when they noted:

The problem is that militant Islam is not seeking a level playing field - equality before the law, for instance - but special treatment. Muslims expect, as they should, the benefits and protections of British pluralism but, in too many cases, baulk at the duties that are their corollary. One of those duties is to accept that, in a free society, there are occasions when each of us is bound to be offended. "Everyone is in favour of free speech," remarked Churchill. "Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like - but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." There is no excuse for gratuitous offence, of course. But some Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women's rights, theocracy and Western practices are to many non-Muslims. The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close British mosques or Islamic newspapers.

The abrasions of a modern, multi-faith society are constant and need to be negotiated calmly and diplomatically. The proper boundaries of speech, art and humour are matters for continuous democratic review and consultation. What is completely unacceptable is that this debate should be carried out in a climate of fear.

For let us not delude ourselves: it is violence, or the threat of violence, that has driven the decisions that have been made in the past week. At a time when reasonable dialogue is most needed, the supposed custodians of our democracy are allowing a gun to be held to its head.

I have no problem if a newspaper, magazine, book, blog, news-cast, or person writes or produces cartoons or commentary about any and all subjects as long as the next person is afforded the right to rebut you with similar tools or through a peaceful demonstration but what we're seeing before our eyes now is shear nonsense. Freedom is too precious of a thing to be poured down the drain just because someone is offended.