 Last week, Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to Hell!" There could be no more graphic illustration of the paradox at the heart of the cartoon row. These protesters were exercising - and in many cases abusing - the freedom of protest and freedom of assembly that are foundation stones of British democracy. Yet, even as they exploited these hard-won liberties, they were calling for them to be abolished.
| They're assuming that come the Caliphate they're going to be big shots. I don't think the concept of individual freedom even makes sense to people whose heritage descends from satraps and potentates... |
This newspaper would not have published the cartoons of Mohammed at the centre of this controversy, images which we regard as vulgar and fatuously insulting.
| Publishing the cartoons isn't a requirement. Having the freedom to do so is. The Telegraph might not publish them, but another rag might want to... |
But - and this is the crucial point - we reserve absolutely our right to make our own decision, free of threat and intimidation. The difficulty is that what started as an issue of editorial judgment has become a question of public order. The protesters in London with their disgraceful slogans - "Behead those who Insult Islam", "Britain you will pay - 7/7 is on its way" - have made it all but impossible for a genuinely free debate on this issue to take place. All such debate is now being carried out in the shadow of murderous intimidation.
| There's nothing to "debate." The cartoons were published as a mockery of Muslims' penchant for foaming at the mouth in response to any kind of perceived insult, existent or not. Sure enough, the foam is foaming, the spittle flying, and the death threats are coming fast and furious. No doubt Jyllands-Posten is surprised at the intensity, but they knew there would be a reaction. |
In this wretched affair, no sight has been more wretched than that of Jack Straw last week kowtowing to militant Islam. "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that," the Foreign Secretary said, "but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory."
| But freedom of speech specifically means you have the freedom to do so. Otherwise, someone will have to be brought to task for every anti-American remark. They'll have to be indicted for every anti-Semitic remark. Brits won't even be allowed to mock Frenchies. But Straw is accepting that Muslims are different from the rest of us, and that the rest of the world has to walk on eggs around them, otherwise they'll act like they're acting right this moment. It's the same sort of attitude the Moose limbs themselves have, that they're beyond any concept of self-control, therefore the onus is on us to control ourselves. |
How pathetic that Mr Straw did not find time to condemn the outrageous behaviour of protesters at home and abroad. Where, also, was Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, as Islamic militants called for bloodshed?
| One place he wasn't was out front, hollering back at them... |
The Government's response is especially feeble when compared to Margaret Thatcher's behaviour during the Salman Rushdie Affair. Whatever her private feelings about the author, she and her Cabinet colleagues were resolute in their defence of his rights. Even before the fatwah, she declared that "it is an essential part of our democratic system that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely".
| By Gad, they're right there. Has the West deteriorated so dramatically in the past 20 years? Or was the West like it is now back then, and Thatcher a better PM than the Brits deserved? |
In this controversy, Mr Straw has been put to shame by the German home minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who robustly defended the freedom of newspapers to make their own decisions. "Why should the German government apologise?" he said. "This is an expression of press freedom." In contrast, the British Government's craven response has sent a terrible signal: those who wish to see free expression curtailed need only light a flame, issue a threat and wave an angry fist.
| Most of the women I know seem to have larger and better functioning testicles than Straw. |
The bitter irony of the protests is that Britain proved itself after the July 7 bombings to be a tolerant, multi-cultural society. Quite rightly, the citizens of this country drew a sharp distinction between their law-abiding Muslim compatriots and the extremists responsible for the atrocities.
| Then the gummint seemed to stop drawing the distinction and assumed the extremists were no different from the law-abiding Moose limbs. Nobody's been deported to date. |
The problem is that militant Islam is not seeking a level playing field - equality before the law, for instance - but special treatment.
| It's their baseless assumption that they're better than the rest of us, by virtue of their religion. I think of it as "delusions of adequacy." |
Muslims expect, as they should, the benefits and protections of British pluralism but, in too many cases, baulk at the duties that are their corollary. One of those duties is to accept that, in a free society, there are occasions when each of us is bound to be offended. "Everyone is in favour of free speech," remarked Churchill. "Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like - but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage."
| It goes beyond mere hollering at each other. I've been in lots of arguments in my life, but I've yet to pull a rod on somebody. Moose limbs as a group demand death to this person or that for whatever offense. They don't bother to argue. Apostate? Kill him. Blasphemy — by any definition, but especially Muslim? Kill him. Splatter the Koran with snot? Kill him. Violence is their first resort. It's in the Koran, so it must be okay, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of whether they're in somebody else's country. |
There is no excuse for gratuitous offence, of course.
| There's no excuse, maybe, but there's no law against it. It's a matter of proportion. If I call you names, call me names back. They're demanding death sentences because somebody mocked them. What comes next? Execution for failing to say "excuse me" when you burp? |
But some Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women's rights, theocracy and Western practices are to many non-Muslims. The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close British mosques or Islamic newspapers.
| That's a matter of opinion, of course. But even though I disagree, I doubt the Telegraph will have me killed. |
The abrasions of a modern, multi-faith society are constant and need to be negotiated calmly and diplomatically.
| Or ignored, as most Christians do images of the cross in vials of piss and images of the Madonna splattered with elephant dung. The assumption on the part of civilized folk is that the creators of such outrages are merely displaying the tiny dimensions of their own warped little souls. Christians allow God to deal with those persons' blasphemy, not presuming to usurp his position. |
The proper boundaries of speech, art and humour are matters for continuous democratic review and consultation. What is completely unacceptable is that this debate should be carried out in a climate of fear.
| That's precisely the intent of the Muslim reaction, though. By resorting to their bullying tactics now, down the road it will be easier to make further demands to curtail the liberties that make us what we are. Notice that the Soddies are in the forefront of the anti-Dansk rhetoric. |
For let us not delude ourselves: it is violence, or the threat of violence, that has driven the decisions that have been made in the past week. At a time when reasonable dialogue is most needed, the supposed custodians of our democracy are allowing a gun to be held to its head.
| As a result, our granchildren will regard them either as pusillanimous villains or as useless infidels. |
|