Here is a good explanation of why the world was saying “Je Suis Charlie” but isn’t rushing to say “Je Suis Pamela Geller.” “The Cartoon Wars,” by Douglas Murray, Gatestone Institute, May 7, 2015 (thanks to Inexion):
ISIS appears to have inspired its first terrorist attack in the United States: in Garland, Texas. This item may have slipped the attention of many people because as is so often the case today, much of the reporting and commentary has got caught up on other, supplementary issues.
The supplementary issues are first, that the attack targeted a competition set up to show images of what people thought Muhammad may have looked like. Then, there is the identity of the people who organized the exhibition and spoke at it.
Before coming to this, let us just return to that main issue. Since January, the idea that ISIS-like groups can inspire people to carry out murderous attacks in Paris and Copenhagen has come to be accepted. But that this can happen in Texas, of all places, could yet have an even worse “chilling effect” on free speech than the attacks in Paris and Copenhagen. No European country has the constitutional commitment to free speech of the United States. And Texas is not stuck in the moral relativism and fearful multiculturalism of most European countries.
There will be a feeling, post-Garland, that if ISIS can strike in Texas, it can strike anyplace. The entire developed world is therefore a potential site for an attack from ISIS. Although no one will put his hands up and surrender, neither will anyone be likely to draw attention to himself by saying or doing anything that might displease such homicidal censors.
The presence of strong security forces clearly helps to prevent attacks, but it is worth remembering that ISIS will use the opportunity of such “failed” attacks to come up with other ways of operating, which they will judge more likely to succeed.
What is most striking, however, is how silent many of the usual defenders of free speech have been.
Undoubtedly this is partly to do with the idea, becoming ingrained, that if you draw Mohammed or publish such images, you have, in some way, got it coming to you. This is an appalling pass to have come to, but it is in just such way that censorship and self-censorship are allowed to embed themselves.
Very few people say that they will not draw a historical figure because they are scared. But attack by attack, the feeling is growing among the majority of the media and others who have declined to publish such images, that they have failed. So to hide that shame, they tell themselves there is something provocative and even irresponsible in challenging people who would challenge the freedom speech.
One might still get the support of those who cherish free speech if one were accidentally to publish a cartoon of Mohammed, but not if you did so deliberately, and in full knowledge of the consequences. But of course, it is precisely after facing the consequences of challenging these would-be censors that it is most important to keep on challenging them, so that people with Kalashnikov rifles do not make our customs and laws.
As people come up with ever more elaborate ways to justify what they probably know in their hearts to be contemptible, it becomes harder and harder for them to change course.
Then there is the other only-occasionally-spoken-about supplementary issue, which may well be at the root of the difference between the assaults in Europe and the response to the attempted Texas assault. The January massacre at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo undoubtedly woke up a portion of the general public in the West because the victims were cartoonists and editors at a “left-wing” magazine. That is, Charlie Hebdo stood for a type of robust secular, anti-establishment type of French politics, which a portion of the left worldwide could recognize as its own.
This stands in contrast to the comparative lack of solidarity after threats to the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, in the wake of the 2005 Mohammed cartoons affair. To varying degrees, Jyllands-Posten was described as a “conservative” paper. In this context, unsure whether “conservative” meant anything from “establishment” all the way to “racist,” there was often suspected to be some dark, ulterior motive for publishing cartoons of the founder of Islam.
There is, however, no escaping such smears. Plenty of people proved willing, in the wake of the Paris attack, to smear the murdered cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo as far-right-wing or racist.
The organizers at the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, are not left-wing journalists but conservative activists; and because the Dutch politician Geert Wilders spoke at the opening of the exhibition, that added a layer of complexity for people who like labeling actions with political valences, rather than just seeing actions as apart from them. It seems clear, however, from the pattern of condemnations on one side and silence on the other, that a cartoonist may be worthy of defense if he is associated with a left-wing organization, but not if he is associated with a right-wing one.
Of course, this idea goes to one of the false presumptions of our time: that people on the political left are motivated by good intentions even when they do bad things, while people on the political right are motivated by bad intentions even when they do good things. So a cartoon promoted by Charlie Hebdo may be thought to be provocative in a constructive way, whereas one promoted by AFDI can only be thought if as being provocative in an unconstructive way. Whether people are willing to admit it or not, this is one of the main problems that underlies the reaction to the Texas attack.
Such a distinction is, needless to say, a colossal mistake. When people prefer to focus on the motives of the victims rather than on the motives of the attackers, they will ignore the single most important matter: that an art exhibition, or free speech, has been targeted. The rest is narcissism and slow-learning.
It does not matter if you are right wing or left wing. It does not matter if you are American, Danish, Dutch, Belgian or French, or whether you are from Texas or Copenhagen. These particularities may matter greatly and be endlessly interesting to people in the countries in question. But they matter not a jot to ISIS or their fellow-travellers. What these people are trying to do is to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws across the entire world.
That is all that matters. If we forget this or lose sight of it, not only will we lose free speech, we will lose, period.
Vik says
If creating an image of Mohammed is blasphemy and deserves death, can we make the case that naming their boys after him and turning them into his clones is the same thing?
ermin says
We live in a mad world dare I to say dystopia , so we’re actually the irregularities , my friend we’re swimming against the current
artie galvin says
Amen to this!
Dave J says
Well said.
The despicable Linda Sarsour was on NPR yesterday calling Pamela a racist (unchallenged by the host) and repeating the “words have consequences” threats.
The goal of Bin Laden and all the jihadists is to bleed us financially with security costs while putting a chill on free speech with their victim philosophy and ridiculous “Islamophobia” meme. It’s working for them too, so Resistance is Essential.
Papa Whiskey says
Dave J —
On what show was that? I’d like to get a transcript.
Papa Whiskey
RG says
At the time of the American Revolution there were scores of Colonists who hated Washington and his disobedient “rebels”! There were even ministers who berated the opposition to British rule from their pulpits. Change is never a comfortable situation. Often it involves bloodshed. Martin Luther King knows all too well about that. Fact is, whether we like it or not, EVIL must be resisted – without it TYRANNY REIGNS every time!!!!!
Howard says
Well written article that hits the nail on the head. Obviously very few people know anything about freedom of speech. But when it is taken away from them it will be too late.
Liberal tolerance tolerates hate, murder, female genital mutilation, killing gays, killing those who criticize islam, and killing those who leave islam to name a few.
I agree with tolerance, but not the tolerance of barbarians committing atrocities. And where is the tolerance of those fighting for free-speech? For that they have no tolerance in the name of tolerating the barbarians.
Jovial Joe says
Well said.
jewdog says
And so we can see in real time how so many millions adopted Islam after the Arab conquests: they were worn down. As Murray’s essay explains, there is a tendency to find issues with the victims and not the perpetrators, to then be silenced by fear. A companion of fear is appeasement. We see that with the academic whitewashing of Islamic history, right down to the grade school level. Now the young are brought up to view Islam favorably, and ever more fear and appeasement grow with time. Eventually, Islam gets more and more prominent, and more and more intimidating. It’s a clever system, that’s for sure.
Theodorick says
PRESERVE Freedom Of Speech!
DRAW The Vile “Prophet” Muhammad
https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/preserve-freedom-of-speech-draw-the-vile-prophet-muhammad/
DP111 says
Interesting read
http://shoebat.com/2015/05/06/china-declares-war-on-islam-prayer-in-mosques-is-outlawed-and-all-muslim-shopkeepers-must-sell-alcohol-or-face-prosecution/
somehistory says
This writing reminds me of many of the old westerns where a thug and his henchmen controlled a town and all in the town had to walk on eggshells or be killed, and many were killed anyway just because the outlaws liked killing. The more the townspeople gave in, the more they were forced to give in.
And then someone came to town who wasn’t afraid, had a fast gun, or could use the weaknesses of the outlaws against them to bring them out for *sentencing* and give the town back to the citizens.
It might be hard to overcome fear of the beast, but if not overcome, the fear will lead to and result in death.
Mary Therese says
I feel it’s in bad taste to make fun of anyone else’s beliefs and the cartoons about Islam or Christianity are an attempt to pit people against one another. It’s a waste of time that could be spent making the world a better place for all of us.
Mirren10 says
”I feel it’s in bad taste to make fun of anyone else’s beliefs and the cartoons about Islam or Christianity are an attempt to pit people against one another.”
It may be ‘in bad taste’, but that’s what free speech is all about. Did you think the Piss Christ was in bad taste ? Funnily enough, though, no Christians attempted to murder anyone over it.
” It’s a waste of time that could be spent making the world a better place for all of us.”
Yes, I’m sure you think once the whole world submits to islam and sharia, it will ”be a better place”.
Not going to happen.
Angemon says
And apparently, succeeding.
Nimrod says
If you were to ask people in Garland, TX if they recognize ISIS or other Muslim terrorist groups as their legitimate government, they would say no.
A) If you were to suggest that an illegal operation of some sort, illegal according to federal or state law like a cocaine and heroin trade show, be conducted in Garland, TX you would get objections. Not just because it’s illegal, but because federal SWAT teams might descend on the operation and might end up shooting people etc. It makes sense for people to object to such an operation because they do recognize the governments involved as legitimate and wouldn’t want to be affected by the associated enforcement action.
B) If you suggest that a Mohammed art contest be conducted in Garland, TX, illegal according to sharia law, enforcers from terrorist groups such as ISIS, or lone wolf devout Muslims may show up to enforce sharia law by killing many people. Some people in Garland, TX would object to this violation of sharia law because some sort of volunteer sharia law enforcement might show up to enforce sharia law by trying to kill people.
So what exactly is the difference between A and B? In both cases, a government or would-be government is able to enforce their authority over people IF they submit, or (in Arabic) islam.
So are Americans going to islam themselves to the terrorists in case B and effectively declare ISIS/Islam to be a de facto government with authority over them? I guess we will find out as more of these Mohammed art contests are organized.
Let’s find out which people will islam themselves to terrorists and which ones won’t. Mohammed cartoon contests for every town!
Mark Breza says
AMERIKA IS ON FIRE
EVERYONE RUN FOR THE EXITS !o!
Solange says
What the agenda is; It is to set up a NWO tied together under sharia law. This should be quite evident by now. None of this is by accident. The fist tightens Our rights have been and are being taken away under the premise of “security.”. Government surveillance and mind control is rampant. The West was deliberately infiltrated. Obummer was deliberately set up in office as well as many other western world leaders to help implicate a Fourth Reich, God forbid, using the guise of a Muslim caliphate. Sharia would afford them total control. Notice how it all came down on cue? Notice the complicity of the world’s nations in this? Notice the propaganda of the lamestream media and the leanings of the left toward fascism? The right has leanings as well, best not to affiliate with either one. Yes, by watching closely and connecting the dots, all of this should be quite evident by now.
Solange says
A simple answer to sharia; “I (we) do not subscribe to you religion, period, and that’s the way it is, grow up and deal with it.”