There Is No South Park In Islam. . .

In Islam, nothing like this is permissible:



And that is the point. But some are saying that the cartoons posted in European newspapers and on the internet ad nauseum lack a certain tact, and that the West should not cheer the vulgar and the stupid. In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, the argument for the extreme is asserted:

"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."

Or this from Benjamin Franklin:

Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another; and this is the only check it ought to suffer and the only bounds it ought to know. . .Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech. . .

James Madison:

There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.

First, take away all the "highly offensive" speech, as defined by those who are most offended. Then take away the "moderately offensive" speech, as defined by those who find certain issues "untouchable." Finally, remove anything that might give the appearance of being "offensive", as sensitivity to others' feelings becomes the paramount objective. This was the path of the PC crowd in the 80's and 90's, and it has become the mantra of the Muslims today, "offended" by the depiction of Mohammed in cartoon form. (see Zombietime's excellent archive on the subject)

The loss of freedom does not come in one step, but is whittled away piecemeal, like the frog who is put in the pot and slowly boiled. The frog does not sense the change in temperature, and people (with glaring exceptions, as in this case) either remain ignorant to the situation, choose to ignore it for fear of the consequences or, as the liberal/PC/Moonbat/appeaser crowd is wont to do, accept restrictions based on a feeble attempt at placation or out of a sense of guilt for supposed Western "wrongdoings."

Ward Churchill's execrable writings about the victims of the 9/11 being "little Eichmanns" is a case in point. Even those who called for his speech to be unfunded by the state of Colorado acknowledged that he had the right to spew his invective in oratory or written form. His rights to speak and publish are secure. That does not mean he has a right to be heard, or even taken seriously. Those who are offended, or merely disagree with his point of view are encouraged to oppose him by offering their own points of view. The only way to fight speech one opposes is with more speech. It has been said that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and helps to expose the idiots through their speech. But one may not challenge another's speech through resorts to violence or even mere intimations of violence, be it from the government or any private citizen.

Freedom to speak and publish, on any subject at any time, should be absolute. If any one person is silenced, others are sure to follow. The following photos and links should make the point more succinctly.

Parody from Ace Of Spades HQ:



Christopher Hitchens points out the obvious. . .

Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death.

. . .civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient.

Ibn Warraq says that the West should not apologize. . .

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally. Be proud, do not apologize.

The Volokh Conspiracy on an international trend of suppressing anti-religious speech. . .

So harsh criticism of Scientology should be outlawed (unless somehow the government is empowered to decide that it's not a "real" religion). So would harsh criticism of Catholicism — which may well urge hostility to Catholic teachings and the Catholic hierarchy — on the grounds that it supposedly oppresses women or homosexuals. So would harsh criticism of militant Islam. Religious ideas and religious institutions, which are often among the most important and influential ideas and institutions, would thus be legally protected from strong condemnation, condemnation that in many instances (though of course people disagree on which instances) is entirely merited.

Michelle Malkin lets the Muslims speak, in their own words. . .


Let's see, that's: slay, demolition, behead, butcher, extermination. . .


. . .massacre, exterminate (again). . .


. . .real holocaust (nice touch). . .


. . .behead. . .


. . .and finally (at least from those present in London) annihilate!
Clever choice of words, how very subtle!

---

This Non Sequitur from '03 illustrates the PC point of view:

---

The Jawa Report links Mohammed and Islam to Marx and Communism, both resulting in totalitarianism. . . agreeing with El Presidente's point of view:

If the right to not be offended actually existed, no one could say anything about anyone at anytime, without fear of condemnation or persecution. This is the essence of totalitarian regimes or religions. Nothing contradictory, counterrevolutionary, or blasphemous (as defined by the authorities) may be said, published, or thought. This is slavery, pure and simple: slavery of the mind.

Earlier posts:
Note To Europeans: Never Let Go!
Furor Over Cartoons Not Funny

Michelle Malkin RELIGION OF PEACE STILL BUSY
Stop The ACLU Lo, Behold The Open Trackback
The Volokh Conspiracy Suppressing Anti-Religious Speech -- an Emerging International Law Norm?
Ace of Spades HQ Contortionist News Network