Uncommon Sense

I support Kurt Westergaard (UPDATED)

The chief of the Danish intelligence service says police have foiled an attempted terrorist attack on Kurt Westergaard, who caused a stir a few years back when for a Danish newspaper he drew one of several cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The incident only reinforces the value of what Westergaard did, and again illustrates the irrationality and insanity of much of the reaction to his drawings.

I stand with Westergaard.

 

To see more of the cartoons, go here.

UPDATED, Jan. 3, 2010 — Just realized that Westergaard drew only one of the "offending" cartoons.

Going crazy — again! - because of the Muhammad cartoons

I have nothing but intolerance for anyone who would use violence, or even the fear of violence, to quell free expression. That's just another way for dictators and tyrants, and the the weak-willed who dare not dare offend them, to get their way.

So count on me on the side of the Yale alums outraged that the ever-politically correct Yale is publishing a book about the controversial Muhammad cartoons — but not including the controversial Muhammad cartoons in the book.

Score another one for the bad guys.

Here at Uncommon Sense, we have nothing but intolerance for that kind of nonsense, so once again, here are some of those "offending" cartoons:

 

 

You can see the other cartoons, here.

Read my previous commentary on the cartoon "controversy," here.

Bin Laden, this one is for you!

Osama bin Laden gives more reason to why the Muhammed cartoons must be published.

The pen is mightier than the sword

In response to purported plot to kill the creator of the so-called "Muhammed cartoons," newspapers in Denmark and other European nations, have reprinted the cartoons.

Good for them.

Not only is the republishing of the cartoons entirely appropriate and victory for free expression, it does gives Muslims yet another chance to prove that theirs is not an intolerant faith able to withstand a satirist's pen.

Or maybe not.

For my coverage of the controversy two years ago, go here.

Solidarity

In solidarity with fellow journalist Aleksandr Sdvizhkov of Belarus, on trial for wanting to publish a few cartoons, I bring you this:

To see all the "Muhammad cartoons," go here.

Cartoon irony

The irony of the day, if not the year, comes from Drake McFeely, president of Norton, which has published a book of political cartoons that newspapers and others considered too controversial to print — but not before keeping out the cartoon, drawn by Pulitzer Prize winner Doug Marlette, accompanying this post.

"I know why it didn't run and you know why it didn't run," book editor David Wallis told columnist Kathleen Parker.

Parker continues:

Editors and publishers, including Norton president Drake McFeely, typically explain their decision not to run certain cartoons with arguments about responsibility and sensitivity. McFeely said Norton's decision was based on sensitivity to the political environment: "We blinked at that one, but we did not blink on the other 282 pages of cartoons."

By definition, cartoons are insensitive, but the best ones are also meaningful -- not just gratuitously provocative. Irresponsibility, meanwhile, is in the eye of the beholder. Marlette points out that in the South "good Christian people thought Martin Luther King was 'irresponsible.' The Soviets called Vaclav Havel's and Solzhenitzyn's writings 'irresponsible.' "

Provocation, in other words, is good. Cartoons are essentially nonviolent direct action. How would you prefer to air grievances: With detonator vests or doodles? Thought so.

Marlette, a Pulitzer Prize winner, isn't known for taking prisoners.

"I wonder how Norton authors like Sigmund Freud, whose books were burned by the Nazis, or feminist Adrienne Rich's burqa-averse poetry would fare with the Muslim censors and Norton's editorial appeasers," he said.

"Norton has no moral obligation to risk the lives of their employees to publish a cartoon, but they should acknowledge they killed the cartoon because they were frightened for their lives because of a drawing and didn't want their offices bombed."

Many doubtless would agree with Norton's decision, figuring that the possibility of mortal threat is a pretty good reason not to publish a controversial cartoon. But, in fact, it is the very reason to publish.

Not to be gratuitously in your face, but to be purposefully in your face. To make clear that free speech -- even drawn opinion -- not only trumps special interests, but also requires a bold and sometimes insensitive defense.

Read the whole column below the fold.

Press freedom prevails

Click here to enlarge

A Danish court injects some sanity into the fight over the Muhammed cartoons.

From the Washington Times:

COPENHAGEN -- A Danish court rejected a lawsuit yesterday against the newspaper that first printed prophet Muhammad cartoons, some of which depicted Islam as a violent religion.

The City Court in Aarhus rejected claims by seven Danish Muslim groups that the 12 drawings printed in the Jyllands-Posten daily were meant to insult the prophet and make a mockery of Islam.

The court conceded that some Muslims saw the drawings as offensive, but found there was no basis to assume that "the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims."

Jyllands-Posten's editor in chief hailed the court's decision as a victory for freedom of speech.

"Everything but a pure acquittal would have been a disaster for press freedom and the media's ability to fulfill its duties in a democratic society," Editor in Chief Carsten Juste said.

The newspaper has apologized for offending Muslims, but stands by its decision to print the cartoons in September 2005 as a challenge to a perceived self-censorship among artists afraid to offend Muslims.

The caricatures were reprinted in European newspapers in January and February, fueling protests in the Islamic world. Some turned violent, with Danish outposts attacked and people killed in Libya and Afghanistan.

Muslims were outraged at the court decision.

"The dismissal of the lawsuit against the newspaper, which was expected, confirms the ongoing intention to harm our religion and our prophet," said Mahmoud al-Kharabsheh, an independent legislator who heads the Jordanian parliament's legal committee.

The plaintiffs plan to appeal the verdict, spokesman Kasem Ahmad told Danish radio, adding that he feared Muslims around the world would be upset by the ruling.

"Upset?"

We know what that means.

Malkin toasts the court's decision.

See all 12 cartoons here.

Iran debuts Holocaust cartoons

Inspired by the varmin that is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran on Monday debuted an exhibit of 200 cartoons about the Holocaust. In all, about 1,200 cartoons were submitted from around the world after Ahmadinejad called for them in response to the furor this year over a Danish newspaper publishing cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed.

Still waiting for the riots to begin in Tel Aviv and Haifa.

And the cries for "tolerance" from the same quarters who cried the same in response to the Muhammed cartoons.

For their sake, Israelis are used to this kind of nonsense, and know what really matters.

Like picking up the pieces left by Ahmadinejad's recent proxy war against Israel.

Hamas cartoon pisses on America

This one will make your brain hurt.

From Palestinian Media Watch:

This current issue of the Hamas weekly has a cartoon of a Palestinian child urinating on the Statue of Liberty, which is holding a book labelled "Democracy." This expression of utter disdain for the U.S. and its democracy follows other recent slurs in the (Palestinian Authority) media. For example, the West was condemned in March at a Palestinian rally "for many years of trying to penetrate Islamic youth with dubious things such as the ideas of democracy." [Al Hayat Al Jadida, March 4, 2006].

So it is OK for foreigners to publish an image disrespectful of one of America's most important symbols.

But it is not OK for Americans to publish these cartoons, because they might offend people who have no problem offending America.

Of course, pissing on America is not likely to start a riot — at least in America.

In fact, it's an American right to disrespect our symbols, i.e. burning the American flag (at least for now), to make a larger point.

Except if exercising that right might offend people who have problem pissing on you.

Are we clear?

PMW has other cartoons in which Lady Liberty has gotten the Muhammed treatment.

(H/T to World Net Daily, via El Cafe Cubano.)

Support freedom, buy Harper's

With it's June edition, Harper's becomes the first major American liberal magazine to publish the infamous Muhammed cartoons, complete with commentary from "leading American cartoonist" Art Spiegelman

Spiegelman even offers what he calls a "fatwa bomb meter" to rate their offensiveness, according to an Associated Press story.

The AP continues:

Spiegelman, an elder statesman of political satire famous for his New Yorker cartoons, said the cartoons needed to be seen to be understood.

"As a secular Jewish cartoonist living in New York City, I start out with four strikes against me, but I really don't want any irate Muslims declaring holy war on me," Spiegelman wrote in his commentary.

"It's not intended to add fuel to any fire," Spiegelman told Reuters, describing himself as "a devout coward."

"I wanted to show ... what couldn't be described," he said, adding that he was surprised that most of his friends had not seen the cartoons.

Whatever Spiegelman's intent or the seriousness of his purpose, Harper's should be commended to breaking the wall of self-censorship imposed by most in the American media and publishing the cartoons to that its readers can see for themselves and hopefully understand why the cartoons have caused such a ruckus. By publishing the cartoons, Harper's also has struck a blow for the freedom of the press and why it must be defended and promoted, especially in the face of extremism and lunacy.

The latest edition of Harper's hit newstands on Tuesday.

(H/T to Michelle Malkin.)