« Save Muhammad Al-Asadi | Main | Carnival of the Trackbacks LIV »

Danish apples, Islamic oranges

Yesterday, I wrote a piece about the three laws that govern human behavior -- the laws of man, the laws of morality, and the laws of the jungle. Barely an hour after it was published, one commenter challenged me to apply those laws to the Cartoon Intifadah. Now, the fine commenters did an excellent job of answering "diversity day," but I just have to have my own say and am taking the opportunity to pull together their thoughts, my own ideas, and put it all in one (hopefully) coherent whole.

To begin with, let's sum up the basic facts: a single Danish newspaper, as an exploration of the dangers of self-censorship, commissioned several cartoonists to depict Mohammed -- the founder of Islam -- in whatever way they chose. The newspaper chose twelve of them and published them. Months later, riots and protests broke out around the world, inflamed by those twelve and three other cartoons of unknown origin but distributed by a group of Danish Muslims who were spreading the word about the publication. These riots led to churches and embassies being burned, people being killed, boycotts announced by Islamic nations against Denmark, and a rift between two factions of the West, with some saying "these folks are nuts, we gotta deal with them" and others saying "these folks are nuts, we shouldn't provoke them."

So, how does my "three laws" theory fit this case?

First law: the laws of man. No problem. The cartoons might have violated the laws of some Islamic nations, but not the laws of Denmark, where they were first published. End of discussion.

Second law: the laws of morality. Questionable, as they were definitely aimed at violating a cultural taboo. This becomes a question of whether the violator was bound to respect the taboo, and whether the taboo is justified. It also brings up the deeper question -- by what right does any group have to demand that non-adherents abide by their customs? Specifically, by what right to Muslims have to demand that non-Muslims in non-Muslim nations honor their laws? As I said, it's debatable -- but I firmly come down on the side that it was not a violation of moral law.

Now for the tricky one: the unwritten law. To what degree did the publication of the cartoons contribute to the following violence, and was it a worthwhile risk?

diversity day falls victim to the same leap of illogic that befell the whole protest movement. They are attributing responsibility for the actions of a single newspaper with the whole nation of Denmark -- and in some cases, the whole West. The vast majority of the backlash has been aimed not at the newspaper or the cartoonists, but on the Danish government or Danish companies that had absolutely nothing to do with the publication. In essence, it has become a "hostage situation," where innocent, non-involved parties are being punished for the actions of others.

And the Danish government really has no valid response. Do they violate their own laws and principles and punish the newspaper for its entirely legal action? What kind of precedent does that set? For two, it establishes that the government can and will exert control over the press, pretty much ending the whole notion of a free press. For another, it says that the government can and will be coerced into trashing its own principles and sacrificing its sovereignty through threats of violence -- something that historically has been anathema to the Danes, as exemplified by their resistance to the Nazi occupation during World War II.

Again, though, that's all diversionary. The initial action taken here was taken by the Danish newspaper, and therefore the question falls on them: should they have foreseen the consequences of their actions, and should they have acted differently?

Actually, that's two questions, so I'll answer them both. First, should they have foreseen the consequences? I'd have to say no. The initial response was rough, but manageable. In fact, it blew over within a few weeks. It wasn't untilt the entirely-unforeseeable event of a delegation of Danish Muslims started circulating fake cartoons -- deliberately intended to inflame the masses -- and falsely attributing them to the newspaper that set off the truly large-scale protests.

Second, should they have acted differently? I say not. The whole point of the publication was to show that Islamic law and custom do NOT hold sway over Western law and custom in the West, that threats of violence will not dissuade us from abandoning our most cherished principles and freedoms.

And if that freedom offends some, that's just too goddamned bad.


Comments (5)

Perhaps the Law of the Jung... (Below threshold)
Charles Bannerman:

Perhaps the Law of the Jungle includes what I would call the Law of Human Nature.
The Law of Human Nature dictates that when you push someone and he retreats, you push more until you meet resistance then you ease up and get to keep the ground you gained. If you push too hard and the subject starts pushing back with equal or more force, you lose.
The school yard bully principle where the victim turns on the bully and whips his ass.
The Islamists know the Law of Human Nature well and are applying it to great effect around the world. We choose to suppress the Law of Human Nature and we are losing.
It is time for the Worm to Turn and whip the bully's ass.
Chuck

Great piece Jay. Chuck hit ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Great piece Jay. Chuck hit the nail on the head as to the nature of what's going on, so what's the next step for the west?

Unfortunately, what's t... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Unfortunately, what's the next step for the west....It would seem as if judged by this SAS lieutenant that it would be getting down to their level..Yes human nature has met the law of the jungle and I can't say it has been very edifying for anyone. Of course we can justify ( rather too easily I think) that this whole enterprise of taking the fight to Baghdad has been a defence of our civlization and its values, but the unintended consequence is that so many of soldiers who reflect our citizenry, have been so negatively affected, rather than enobled in this highly publicised defence of freedom.

What we are attempting to d... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

What we are attempting to do in Iraq transcends the usual goals of war, at least war as practiced in past centuries. The usual outcome of war was conquest and subjugation. In the 20th century we practiced total war, but when it ended, the victors worked hard to quickly rebuild defeated nations and replace their prior governments with constitutional democratically elected governments. While quite successful in bringing lasting peace, the price of total war was many millions of casualties.

In the 21st century the U.S. adds a new twist to war. Rather than total war we practice targeted war; applying only enough military force to bring down the enemy government. This leaves lots of disgruntled members of the defeated regime free to continue the struggle gorilla style, which we are countering with quasi law enforcement tactics backed by military when needed. Capturing, questioning and imprisoning non-combatants goes hand in hand with these new tactics, and some feel this treatment is illegal under traditional rules of war. Such a case is the SAS soldier Ben Griffin, who after three months in Baghdad, told his commander that he was no longer prepared to fight alongside American forces. Apparently Ben would rather have seen the U.S. use the total war tactics of the 20th century rather then get into the messy business needed to minimize civilian deaths. Obviously, Ben has the right stuff for a left-wing hero.

Mac Lorry.. Agreed a limite... (Below threshold)
Steve Cricmore:

Mac Lorry.. Agreed a limited war under the auspices of a unpopular and somewhat obtuse army of occupation in the heartland of Islam fighting a urban guerilla war is a nearly impossible task..But now this limited war threatens to engulf the region and escalate into a total war, a prospect that is even more alarming...I don't think the Pentagon had the whit from the top civilian leadership down. to make such critical and constant distinctions between (let me crude) good and bad Muslims, combatants or non-combatants, witness the furore in the Homeland over the Dubai port deal, and Ben Griffen's even more graphic indictment of what is happening on the front lines.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy