"This debate is going on in the only place it can - in western Europe, where there are many diverse Muslim communities, and where the traditions and freedoms necessary for open argument exist."

I just finished reading Bruce Bawer's chilling "While Europe Slept." As such, the above statement seems a tad, shall we say, overly optimistic, since the "debate" ended decades ago, and people have been brainwashed into perceiving events through the same p.c.-distorted lens. Any other point of view is immediately decried as "racist" or "Islamophobic" or serving the malign interests of "the Zionists" or the U.S.

An Iron Veil has now descended on the Continent, and "open argument" is one of its casualties.

Posted by: scaramouoche at June 17, 2006 8:11 AM

An iron veil, or an iron burqa.

Posted by: Voltaire at June 17, 2006 8:14 AM

John Lloyd of course is pretty much correct. The self-censoring of the cartoons was a massive betrayal of Western values and the general public. There seems to be one simple and ominous message from the Cartoon Jihad and that is that extortion pays.Whoever throws the biggest temper tantrum and are biggest bullies win. What Muslims got out of whole thing was power and a reason to keep pushing. They are ever pushing boundaries seeing how far they go and how much power they can gain; which in this situation was alot, the elites of a modern western democracy, bowed down and kissed their dirty feet. Like all bullies they in the end are cowards looking for easy marks and would probile back up a bit if someone , somewhere would smack there grubby, grabby hands. They are problem because we, the non-Muslims let them get away with it.

This whole debacle made large segments of the West look weak and weakness to the Muslims is what blood in the water is to a shark. These seventh century savages will become more aggressive, more emboldened and hence more people will die and more stuff will be trashed.

There is such a lack of confidence in Western Values that I sometimes worry that our leaders might just take up Amanutter or someone else's invite to become Muslim. Whatever keeps the belly full,money in the bank and the old head on the neck I guess is what matters, principle be damned. It will be like when Constantine converted to Christianity and all the Pagans flocked to the new get ahead, politically correct religion, and tossed the old out.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at June 17, 2006 8:15 AM

Mr. John Lloyd is incorrect about nude Hindu Gods. The nude scluptures are not those of Gods. Yes, they were made in ancient India, but NEVER of Gods. And hussain made nude pictures of "Bharat Mata" (Mother India), and those of the Goddess Saraswati (NEVER portrayed in anything less than a complete saree).

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 17, 2006 8:27 AM

Here is a link to Bharat Mata as she is portrayed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharat_Mata

And here is the portrait of Saraswati Mata.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saraswati

husain violated the very basics of Hinduism. And yes, he never had the courage to make a picture of the kaba even, leave that of mohammad.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 17, 2006 8:37 AM

Not a "disastrous miscalculation" by the British alone.

Next to its sickening non-treatment of Hitler's persecution and murder of the Jews within Germany, and then its deliberately downplaying of the genocide during the war (see Laurel Leff's book on the subject), and of course the absurd dispatches of Walter Duranty from the Soviet Union during the time of the famine in the Ukraine, and the purge trials, and the killing of Marshal Tukhachevsky and the entire officer corps, while the moustachioed sociopath received gifts sent from grateful schoolgirls in Kiev and from wizened shepherds in Uzbekistan, and reindeer-herdsmen in fabulous far-off Yakutia, next to those two failures, the greatest failure, perhaps an even greater failure if things do not go right, has been the coverage of Islam, the instruction in what Islam teaches and what attitudes naturally arise from that teaching, that one finds or fails to find in that fast-shrinking paper of record, The New Duranty Time.

This is its third, and last chance, to get it right. It failed with the Nazis -- until it was too late for many of its readers, who might have done more to save their own relatives had they understood what was going on. But they didn't. and they failed with the Communists, who should have been understood not by 1947 or 1948, but all along, so that the minute after Hitler was defeated, the Americans could have stopped the Red Army in its East-European tracks.

Now The New Duranty Times has been failing again. This is the final test.

In its defense, the editors of The New Duranty Times can claim that they have failed, but so has everyone else. The entire government, executive and legislative branches, republicans and democrats, have failed to learn and failed to instruct about Islam and the Jihad. So too have all those out of office. In particular, a word of special disgust should be reserved for the grasping Bill Clinton, greedy for money and every other kind of satisfaction he can think of, he who speechifies and speechifies for great sums all over the place, but has failed to mention Islam save to stoutly defend it before Arab audiences, in such places as Qatar, before -- or perhaps after -- picking up his check in its waiting envelope.

Posted by: Hugh at June 17, 2006 8:50 AM

Fundamentalist, violent Islam has, of course, a world- conquering ideology that no other religion now possesses.

Or ever has possessed, but let it pass.

Hey Robert, don't overdo the innocence of Christianity, or you'll lose your objectivity and credibility. The history of Islam is much worse, of course, but Christianity did get off the tracks when Constantine merged it with the Roman Empire. Fortunately, Christians, thanks to the rationalistic tradition inherited from the Greco-Romans, eventually had the brains to re-separate Church and State. Real Christianity is supposed to be private and spiritual. If it stays that way, it will be a force for good.

Posted by: Benjamin at June 17, 2006 9:39 AM

""Without fear or favour" has been a motto of the press."

Time for a new, more apropos motto. How about "Favour those you fear"?

Posted by: Caroline at June 17, 2006 9:46 AM

How many times? It is not "The prophet Mohammed" it is "The Islamic prophet Mohammed".

He is only a prophet to Muslims. To everyone else, he is a homicidal paedophile.

Posted by: Celsius at June 17, 2006 9:49 AM

I'm surprised to see this opinion being expressed in the Financial Times, which is normally rather feeble on the subject of Islam. The point about free speech is well made, but what stops the Financial Times or any other newspaper publishing the cartoons now? Actions speak louder than words, and better late than never.

Posted by: Interested at June 17, 2006 10:13 AM

Hugh,
Everything you wrote is correct. However this blindness and culpability did not stop with the New Duranry Times or with US policies in the 1940s, but continues to this day.

In 2004, the Bush Administration issued a stamp honouring the singer Paul Robeson.

This is the same Robeson who in 1950, refused to sign an affidavit that he was not a Communist. In 1952, he was awarded the Stalin Peace Prize and in April, 1953 shortly after Joseph Stalin's death wrote a tribute entitled "To You Beloved Comrade" in which he praised Stalin's "deep humanity", "wise understanding", and dedication to peaceful co-existence.

Part of the tribute were these words to the tune of the Soviet National Anthem.

"Through days dark and stormy
when great Lenin led us
our eyes saw the bright sun of Freedom above
and Stalin our leader
with faith in the people
inspired us to build the land that we love."

If the Bush administration considers a man like this worthy of a US postage stamp, we shoudn't be surprises that it is completely blind to the nature of the current totalitarian threat from Islam.

Posted by: Provoslavni at June 17, 2006 10:29 AM

My assumption about the British press during the cartoon crisis was that we had troops operating in two Moslem countries where the attitude of the local population was of importance and did not want to act as a recruiting sergeant for the enemy, who would have exploited any publication to the full. That's not to say that a large number of ill informed trendies didn't actually think the Muslims were in the right - and it was sickeniing to hear their smug, self-righteous condemnation of the Danes.
The only journal that stated it was too afraid to publish the cartoons was the satyrical magazine 'Private Eye' who came out and said they didn't fancy getting car bombed. It shows how bad things are, since the Eye was the sole British journal in the '60's to out the Kray brothers when the rest of British journalists were scared of having their knee caps blown off.

Posted by: wallyUK at June 17, 2006 11:58 AM

Interested

Right on. Without the cartoons on the FT page, Lloyd's commentary is just "Words, words, words."
And worthless.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at June 17, 2006 1:09 PM

arjun

"husain violated the very basics of Hinduism."

Are you serious?? You are sounding like the Mohammed cartoon theologians.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at June 17, 2006 1:19 PM

Re stamps -- wasn't Rockwell Kent, winner of the Lenin Prize, put on a postage stamp some time ago?

On the other hand, Earl Browder's grandson William has become a capitalist investing in Russia (not being treated too well by Putin these days) and last year made close to $150 million. Quaere: would his grandfather have been proud?

Paul Robeson's son studied Russian at Cornell with Nabokov, not a fan of Communism. One wonders what each made of the other.

Now I feel like a little essay on the ugliness of American postage stamps, so I'd better stop here.

Posted by: Hugh at June 17, 2006 1:27 PM

wallyuk wrote:

The only journal that stated it was too afraid to publish the cartoons was the satyrical magazine 'Private Eye' who came out and said they didn't fancy getting car bombed.

...

I actually consider this much braver (as well as more honest, in most cases) than the publications that gave "lofty" reasons for not publishing the cartoons.

The only publication I know of here in the US that took that tack was the Phoenix, Boston's independent weekly of long standing. They said something along the lines of this being the saddest day in their forty-year history, but they could not endanger the men and women on their staff by publishing the cartoons.

My local major paper, the San Francisco Chronicle, did provide a link, but only through their on-line version. The link was to the home page of Der Bild! With a little bit of my bad college German and a lot of trial and error, I able to follow 5 or 6 links and finally found the cartoons. I really doubt that many other readers were able to do so.

gravenimage

Posted by: gravenimage at June 17, 2006 3:35 PM

like the "duranty" NYTimes, the British press acted poorly during the Holocaust, including the BBC which was under Foreign Office supervision [Anthony Eden was fm]. So it's curious that much or all of the UK press is ganging up on Israel in regard to the beach incident of last Friday. They are accepting the PLO version that Israel deliberately fired naval artillery at a family picnic on the beach [at the abandoned Jewish settlement of Dugit]. It's bizarre that anyone would have gone on a picnic to that area where shooting of rockets outbound and Israeli artillery inbound [in order to deter the rocket shooting] have been going on for months. Israeli physicians treated three of the victims of the explosion in Israeli hospitals and extracted shrapnel from them which does not fit the artillery that the PLO/PA claimes that Israel was using.

The point is that the British press was very skimpy on news of the Holocaust during WW2, whereas now they rush to judgement against Israel pretending to be humanitarian and all that. Is this another case where the UK govt is guiding the press??

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 17, 2006 3:51 PM

ovidius_naso

Hussein is a Muslim "artist" who to date hasn't dared to depict Mohammed. However, it didn't stop him from painting Hindu goddesses in the nude. Note that this would be no different than if someone had depicted Christ, Moses, Virgin Mary, et al in the nude. Hinduism has nothing against depicting the goddesses as they were - in their saris. Depicting them in, say, jeans, would be less flattering, but wouldn't lead to this sort of visceral reaction.

But depicting the goddesses in the nude wasn't the worst of what this prick did. He depicted them in bestial poses e.g. Goddess Durga copulating with her vehicle, a tiger. None of the Danish cartoons came close to this, so comparing the Hindu reaction to what was meant to be insulting, to the Muslim reaction to what was completely innocuous, is disingenous at best.

And also note that nobody has issued a call for this 99 year old fart to be murdered. It isn't just Hindus who ought to have protested at this exhibition: anyone who doesn't think that porn ought to be a subject in a museum (particularly for characters that never indulged in it) ought to protest. Or are the numbers who share that view in today's Britain even lower than the number of Hindus who chose to protest this vile exhibit.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 17, 2006 6:02 PM

The Muslims did a demo which was described on the news as against the extremist Muslims, but turns out to be against these cartoons. Why did we show solidarity with the Danish cartoonists in support of Free Speech? Some slimeballs even sacked the editors of a student rag for showing them. Political cartoons are like an institution. When South Park showed Muhammad giving Family Guy a salmon helmet (censored by Comedy Central) I'd say it was clear this had a lot to do with Salman Rushdie-who would have thought the West wouldn't back him up?

Posted by: Houri G'Ella at June 17, 2006 6:06 PM

One more thing about MF Hussein - his parents chose his initials well

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 17, 2006 6:11 PM

As an Englishman I can tell you that the government has TOTAL control of the press now. Our press are cowardly beyond measure. We live in a country that gives huge coverage to any slight against ANY muslim but ignores totally the violence of muslims against non-muslims (see Kris Donald).

I can honestly say that I now hate my country with a passion. You just cannot believe what we have come to here. Gordon Brown wishes to turn our country into some kind of islamic bank, handing over even more influence to the muslims flooding into our country.

We see gangs of muslims attacking the defencelss with the absolute knowledge that all they need to say is that the person they attacked insulted their religion/race etc. Last month a muslim woman with no dirving license or insurance runs over a father of three giving him permanant and severe brain damage, she then drove off and left him to die. Her punishment? £50 fine and a SIX MONTH DRIVING BAN (even though she had no driving licence). How can this be? A month before that we see a muslim woman recently arrived in this country giving her baby brain damage to rid it of "devils". Her punishment? NOTHING. The judge said that she "did not know how to live in teh westas she had not been here very long and spoke no English".

We are being purposefully deceived by our government and the press. Our politicians wosh only to line their own pockets whatever the cost to the population.

I cannot stress strongly enough that this country is everything we imagined soviet Russia to be at the hieght of the cold war. Any dissent is treated with immediate legal action. Any violence aimed at people who question islam is swept under the carpet in the name of "multiculturalism" for which you should read MONEY.

Forget sending U.S. troops to Iraq to free them from THEIR dictator, send them here to save us from Papa Blair, his government and his islamic masters. You'll be more welcome here than Iraq.

Posted by: DaveMate at June 17, 2006 6:14 PM

ovidius_naso,
Buddy, I am serious. Yes, we did have nude sculptors (think the Greeks and the Romans had them too). But, what we Hindus call "The Mother", is never, never, portrayed disrespectfully. This would be similar to The Virgin being portrayed nude. And I think the Christians would be outraged at that. What you see here is Hinduism being insulted by mf hussain, a muslim. I do not think that freedom of expression gives anyone the right to portray The Virgin as a nude, or for the Hindu "Mothers" as well. Just because we had statues of nudes is reason to believe that our Gods were portrayed naked ? Buddy, I have taken the time to study Christianity, I just wish you would not base your judgment upon Hinduism upon just statues which are just the works of art, not Gods.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 17, 2006 8:09 PM

Cowards attract thugs.

Its a dismal law of human nature.

Street punks, like hyenas, look for the weakest members of the herd to take down.

Militant Muslims, the same.

England is castrating itself.

Islam cheers.

They'll make uniquely high-pitched muezzins, I suppose.

Quae nocent docent.

(What disrupts instructs.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 17, 2006 11:04 PM

Hugh, all, what is with this fixation on Clinton these days (or Carter as well?)

Less I be perceived as an apologist for Clinton or a Democrat, rest assured I am not.. but Clinton is not President, neither is Carter, so when they speak they are letting loose verbal flatulence.

In other words, they have no effect on our governments policy, and it is our governments policy, who it chooses to do business with (like the Arabs-Dubai Ports, the Saudis etc), what it permits (like Saudi subversion, Muslims chaplains in prisons and military.. Capt Yee comes to mind now).,, and none of that has anything to do with Clinton or Carter, in fact the whole Islamofascist movement got its jumpstart under the Republicans, in particular one each Ronald Reagan.

There is rhetoric and their is action (or inaction).
Based on action and outcomes, the conservatives have been the best allies of Islamism (especially when they want to sell them stuff or buy their oil). The Democrats of course come in second.

It's really not a left v right, Republican v Democrat thingie, except for the conceptually and mentally challenged.

Posted by: Nariz at June 17, 2006 11:41 PM

I wrote above that the UK press was skimpy about Holocaust news when the Holocaust was happening during WW2. Nor did any Allied govt in WW2 do anything practical to stop the massacres, such as the industrial mass murder at Treblinka.
The following seven links deal with the British press and Holocaust, using the testimony of a Polish-Jewish leader, Shmul Zigelboym [Comrade Artur], little used in the past
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/bbc-holocaust-was-it-reported-or.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/more-on-bbc-and-holocaust.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/britain-bbc-holocaust-suicide-of-shmul.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/in-despair-over-bbc-official-british.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/04/warsaw-ghetto-uprising-zigelboyms.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/britain-silent-partner-in-holocaust.html
The following entry quotes an article by Barbara Rogers, a British historian, on the issue of UK govt guidance of the press regarding the Holocaust, with lengthy quotes from Rogers.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/british-governmental-guidance-of.html

Blog posts below deal with British policy in Iraq and pro-Nazi sentiment in Iraq during WW2 plus pogrom against Jews in Baghdad allowed to proceed by British policy
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/05/british-troops-told-to-stand-aside-as.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/06/glamourous-glimpses-of-life-in-baghdad.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/06/pro-nazi-mufti-of-jerusalem-enjoys.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/06/mufti-of-jerusalem-incited-1941-farhud.html

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 18, 2006 5:12 AM

Profitsbeard wrote :-

Cowards attract thugs.

Its a dismal law of human nature.

Street punks, like hyenas, look for the weakest members of the herd to take down.

Militant Muslims, the same.

England is castrating itself.

Islam cheers.

They'll make uniquely high-pitched muezzins, I suppose.

Quae nocent docent.

(What disrupts instructs.)

Having read this forum for a while I notice Profitsbeard that you like nothing more than to drive wedges between people in a very subtle way. Are you a muslim yourself? I know muslims say "war is deceit" and any tactic is fine, such as appearing to be on the side of the anti-jihadists when in fact a person is a jihadist infiltrating the minds of others. Or do you just hate the English that much? As far as "cowards attracting thugs" I think that is a bit harsh as that encompasses both the British AND the U.S. surely? If you remember (and I'm sure you do) a group of "thugs" flew some passenger airliners into two of Americas most prominent buildings a few years ago. Don't get me wrong I am certainly not celebrating that, I just find it odd that profitsbeard seems to take such pleasure in the fact that the UK/Europe is being infiltrated by muslims rather than working with the other nations in the way that muslims work together to negate threat.

I hope I am wrong about you, but you just come across as a very subtle troller.

Posted by: DaveMate at June 18, 2006 5:20 AM

DaveMate-

Don't take it personally. I meant that in general weakness attracts predators.

Islam- predator.

West- prey.

If the jihad and Islamic Imperialsim and Koranic lunacy has a harsher opponent than me, I'd like to meet them.

Read my postings, and get over the fear-of-Brit-bashing.

You sound like someone crying Islamophobe in reverse!

I'm part British from my mother's side, and wish the U.K. victory.

But first it needs its cultural testicles to fully descend on the question of its Islamic invasion.

The U.S. only has one functioning, admitedly, but we've got the 2nd Amendment as a spare.

Hang in there!

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 18, 2006 4:08 PM

Oh, and DaveMate-

Didn't you- just above- call your own government and your Biritsh press "cowards", also?

This is essentially what I was echoing.

(Think a little more Swift and a little less two Ronnies, as far as subtlety goes.)

Turning up the heat to boil the self-censoring stooges, not the English people.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 18, 2006 4:15 PM

DaveMate-

Maybe it's our senses of humor don't sync?

Here's a clue:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010061.php

And scroll down to "Mo- The Musical!"

Cheers!

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 18, 2006 5:13 PM

I see.

Posted by: DaveMate at June 19, 2006 5:53 AM

Then I apologise.

Posted by: DaveMate at June 19, 2006 5:55 AM