A global battle for free speech?

My continuing debate with Flemming Rose

I responded to an article that Mr. Rose wrote for the Wall Street Journal and republished on his blog. It is about the alleged plot uncovered by Danish authorities to kill the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. In my response below, I refer specifically to the following passage:

Consider the following recent events: In Oslo a gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings, showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog’s body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been under police protection since the fall of 2007. In Holland the municipal museum in The Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera of gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali; Ms. Hera has received several death threats and is in hiding. In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of Jyllands-Posten’s Muhammad cartoons. In Egypt bloggers are in jail after having “insulted Islam.” In Afghanistan the 23-year-old Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed “blasphemous” material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. And in India the Bengal writer Taslima Nasreen is in a safe house after having been threatened by people who don’t like her books.

Every one of the above cases speaks to the same problem: a global battle for the right to free speech.

"Every one of the above cases speaks to the same problem: a global battle for the right to free speech." You are asking the reader to make a leap of logic here that I am not ready to make. That is the leap from the examples you give to your conclusion. Unfortunately, many people were primed with anxiety and suspicion about Islam and have followed your leap into a xenophobic abyss.

Of course those incidents are in no way acceptable, but oversimplifying them into a "battle for the right to free speech" is just irresponsible - it is going too far. "Criticizing Islam" is not an academic exercise in a political vacuum. Essentially, you put the conflict between extremists and the West ahead of the relationship between Muslims and the West. To me, at least, it is clear that the latter is a bigger, more urgent issue. And it is the key to the former.

What is acceptable artistic subject matter is based on societal standards. Basically, you do not sympathize with the people who object to such 'criticism' (whether or not I do is not the point at hand). Other material that by your definition would be "censored" includes subjects that have been rejected by greater society. You and I likely agree that it would be distasteful and inappropriate to display 'art' portraying Jews or Blacks in a disrespectful light. That public consensus did not come about easily or overnight; each case is a result of a complex history and political context. David Irving claims to examine history critically, but he cannot escape the politics of his subject. Though his choice of subject matter and aim of his criticism is likely no accident - neither is the case here of "criticizing religion."

Personally, I am fine with people saying all kinds of irresponsible things. All that bothers me is when they gain power and become mainstream. That is dangerous and that is what the legal aspect of the cartoon issue is about - just like that of holocaust denial.

Simplifying the matter into one of free speech is like simplifying all those who were offended as extremists. As in the cartoon debacle, they are offended for religious reasons, but they are also intimidated as they see the governments, media, and citizens of the West rally against them. And then they are asked to choose a side. Should they side with a West that alienates and publicly humiliates them? Or should they side with fellow Muslims who defy the West and defend their dignity? Even if their methods are extreme, the methods of the West are also extreme, many argue (I don't think I have to list examples). This is the choice with which YOU present them. Then you call them things like "silent moderates," implying that the nature of Islam is not moderate at all.

Free speech itself is not really at risk here. So such a lofty cause comes off as little more than a thinly veiled attack on Muslims. In the end, it undermines the validity of Western ideals.