Respect, always. Submission, never.

"Just two days ago, Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd sent an e-mail to the [Harvard] Salient, warning staff members that “some segments of the campus may be sufficiently upset by the publication of the cartoons that they may become dangerous,” reports The Harvard Crimson. So much for freedom of speech on the campus of the nation's most prestigious institution of higher learning. At a Harvard Interfaith Council forum Thursday, Salient Publisher Travis R. Kavulla ’06-’07 (above on The O'Reilly Factor the same night with our beloved Tony Snow subbing) said “There is a journalistic obligation for the mainstream media to show these things.”  Hey, New York Times et al, if you know what's good for you, get this young man on your editorial team ASAP.

"I do not know if hypocrisy is better or worse than the second most common position encountered in liberal circles: openly siding with Islamic fanaticism and putting the blame fully on the cartoonists and their editors, as Bill Clinton did, Kofi Annan and the Foreign Affairs spokesmen of the Bush and Blair governments," writes Koenraad Elst in The Brussels Journal:

In the Brussels weekly Knack, the Belgian equivalent of Newsweek and Time, with a weekly circulation of 160,000 copies, the editor, Karl Van den Broeck, launched the innovative conspiracy theory that the Neoconservative cabal, with tentacles stretching from Washington DC and Tel Aviv to Aarhus and Brussels (this website!), had planned the whole cartoon riot incident as the trigger for the Clash of Civilizations and the invasion of Syria and Iran, no less. Well, not all that innovative: a similar view was expressed by Ayatollah Khamenei . . .

The Newspeak notion of ‘verbal violence’ is an attempt to vitiate the debate by pretending that strong rhetoric amounts to, and is somehow equivalent to, physical violence. Again this is a trait which is typical of dictatorships, where dissenters are routinely criminalized as ‘trouble-makers irresponsibly sowing conflict in society,’ and the silencing and incarceration of dissidents is justified as ‘necessary for the people’s well-being and social peace.’ In fact, it is precisely the so-called ‘violent’ speech that is protected by the principle of freedom of expression.

Carrying the argument to its logical conclusion, Elst makes toast of "anyone who, like [Brussels government-funded 'intercultural' lobby group] KifKif, demands restrictions on publications that cast the Muslims' prophet in a negative light":

What does KifKif propose to do with the Hadith collections and the Quran, ban those books in toto or merely excise the parts that testify to Muhammad’s acting in contravention of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights]?

But, as with all fans of fear societies, logic and consistency are beside the point. Control over the speech of those one disagrees with are where it's at. And speaking of control over the speech of those one disagrees with, we were more than a little intrigued with Elst's dhimmi-lite apologia:

Please note that in the present article and in other publications, I have practised a reasonable degree of respect for the founder of Islam. Of course I have not used any sycophantic or reverential appositions every time I mentioned his name, such as “Peace Be Upon Him” or “PBUH.” But at least I have repeatedly referred to him as the “Prophet,” and capitalized, no less. As a non-believer, I would have been entitled to describe him each time as “the so-called prophet.” Since I am not in the business of annoying people with such pedantries, I have refrained from exercising that right. It’s just a question of sensitivity, you know.

As we advised in his comments, referencing our post  "Arabic names won't go into English, exactly":

May I suggest the perfect polite but non-sycophantic solution to the infidel's toe-curling "the prophet/Prophet Mohammed/Muhammad" dilemma: "The Muslim prophet Mohammed."

Respect, always. Submission, never.

Update and Instalanche:  "To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, theocracy is forever descending on America, but somehow it always lands somewhere else," notes Glenn Reynolds.

Comments

[Curtis Stone]

I hope people do not allow terror to control free speech, as this is the most basic of all rights. Sure, just because you can does not mean you have to, but that does not mean much when Muslims are killing people over a cartoon. You can find them at my website, http://www.obber.com. I also created a game called Shoot Gallery, and after an introduction from "Prophet Bomb", you can try to gun down Bin Laden for giving the West such a bad impression.

[dougf]

"You can try to gun down Bin Laden for giving the West such a bad impression"

If only.

As time elapses, Binnie appears less of a 'cause' than a symptom. He didn't give the West such a 'bad' impression. He KILLED people by arranging to fly planes into buildings.

What is giving 'such a bad impression' is the clear and consistent messages being delivered daily from much of the Islamic World. Frankly no freedom loving people can co-exist with the mindset behind these messages. Any culture that attempts to appease the 'believers' at the expense of its own basic values loses any right or reason to exist. No wonder Islasmists appear STRONG to many. It's not what they say or do ---- It's what their opponents do NOT say or do.

Something beats nothing every time even if the something is abased beyond all reason, and leads only to the vilest darkness of the soul.

[Denny Flood]

Respect? Hunh.

I think of Muhammad as a false prophet, one by whom many have been deceived. I don't respect his legacy, and I don't respect him. Why should I? Because if I don't perform some rhetorical act of obeisance every time I refer to him, one of those who is in my opinion so deceived will be offended? Please.

I'll happily refrain from making my beliefs plain every time I utter (or write) his name; that's just polite. But wishing peace on Muhammad at this point in his life is utterly meaningless. It offends me deeply that someone expects me to make such a statement, so excuse me if I refrain from that, too.

[ThomasD]

Curtis, I'm with you, but I'd disagree to the extent that free speech is really the second most important right - just after self defense. Because they'd just as soon kill you as any other means of silencing you.

[ronnie schreiber]

Near a friend of mine lives a guy with a couple of things on the back of his car. One is a sticker of a W with an international NO symbol over it. The other is a fish, with feet growing under it and DARWIN in the middle.

I've been tempted to knock on his door and ask how he feels about the Mohammed cartoons.

Here are some more Offensive Mohammed Pictures:
http://www.autothreads.com/i_am_not_a_dhimmi.htm