Well, another European newspaper’s done it — they’ve printed an insulting cartoon of Mohammed. This time, it’s in Sweden.
And, right on schedule, the Muslims are fully in their Standard State #1: OUTRAGE!!!!!
The Organization of the Islamic Conference has issued a very strong statement. I’m going to reprint the entire press release, from their web site, in full:
The Secretary General of the OIC, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu strongly condemned the publishing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by Swedish artist Lars Vilks in the Nerikes Allehanda newspaper. He said that this was an irresponsible and despicable act with malafied and provocative intention in the name of so called freedom of expression and was intended to solely insult and arouse the sentiments of Muslims of the world.
The OIC Secretary General said that the international community was well aware of serious impact of such publications that were globally felt during the controversy that was created by the publication of similar cartoons by a Danish newspaper last year. The OIC Secretary General called on the Swedish Government to take immediate punitive actions against the artist and the publishers of the cartoon and asked for their unqualified apology. In this connection, he also called on the Muslims to remain calm and to exercise restraint.
Let’s see. First up, they condemn the publishing of the cartoons. OK, that’s pretty much to be expected. They call it “irresponsible and despicable” — again, pretty much boiler plate for any similar statement.
Next up, they tip their hands a bit. “with malafied (sic) and provocative intention in the name of so called freedom of expression.” I presume the mean “mala fide,” Latin for “bad faith,” and denigrate the notion that this falls under “freedom of expression.” This is lawyerese for “we know what defense you’d use in court, so here we’re showing you how we would try to counter that.” It’s groundwork for nullifying the freedom of expression in this case — and, if successful, establishing a precedent for any remotely similar case anywhere in the
non-Muslim civilized world.
“…and was intended to solely insult and arouse the sentiments of Muslims of the world.” Two more elements come into play here. First, another attack on the application of “free expression” here, by discrediting the motives of the artist and publisher. Second, to move the venue from Sweden, where the cartoon was published, to the Muslim world — where such quaint notions as freedom are properly kept in their place.
“…the international community was well aware of serious impact of such publications that were globally felt during the controversy that was created by the publication of similar cartoons by a Danish newspaper last year.” Let me paraphrase this one for them:
“Everyone knows that last year a Danish newspaper published far less offensive cartoons of Mohammed, and Muslims around the world went apeshit in an orgy of riots, arsons, and murders — so don’t poke at the crazies.”
“The OIC Secretary General called on the Swedish Government to take immediate punitive actions against the artist and the publishers of the cartoon and asked for their unqualified apology.”
Here they show that, when it comes to the West, they just don’t get it. Or, far more likely, just don’t WANT to.
The Swedish government has absolutely NOTHING to apologize for, because the Swedish government had NOTHING to do with the publication. Their offense is in recognizing inalienable human rights as freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion — which includes the right of freedom FROM religion. The Swedes understand something that the Muslim world does not — and, I fear, can not: that governments have absolutely no business enforcing strictly religious laws upon the populace, especially those who do not ascribe to the religious faith whose tenets are being violated.
“In this connection, he also called on the Muslims to remain calm and to exercise restraint.”
Nice little veiled threat. “Don’t go psycho just yet, folks — let’s give them a chance to surrender before we get medieval on their asses.”
The underlying theme behind these actions is simple: to introduce the precepts of Islamic law — Shariah — into non-Muslim nations. To carve out a special exception in the laws and customs and traditions of other countries for Islam, to establish that when there is a conflict, Islam shall prevail.
On the surface, that’s laughable. The west is nominally Christian, but we regularly fight about any sort of confluence between Christianity and government — to the point where it seems that whole groups (People For The American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, and others of their ilk) have whole cadres on staff watching for the slightest hint of official sanction, recognition, or promotion of Christianity by the government, ready to spring into action to squelch it.
But many of the same people see no contradiction in championing special treatment for Islamic “sensibilities” under color of law. They are rapidly becoming the sort of “useful idiots” as the pro-Communists in the west who cheerfully aided and abetted Stalin and his heirs.
I find myself thinking that the conflict between the Islamic world and those who have no interest in living under Islamic law is growing inevitable. And while I have little doubt that the West will prevail in any such fight, I fear the costs of that victory — the deaths on both sides, and the psychic cost of waging a very bloody and very destructive war — will leave scars that may never heal.
But every time we bow to the demands of the Muslim leadership in the face of threats of violence, we do two things: we push back that fight a little longer, and make certain it will be a bit bloodier. If the Swedish government does concede, if it does violate its own laws and principles, and does take action against the newspaper and the cartoonist, they will have made a terrible concesion — and set a precedent for future capitulations.
The Swedes should know the principle established by their Viking ancestors: “Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.”
By Rudyard Kipling
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: —
“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: —
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: —
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”