Free Speech for Muslims Only

Carsten Juste, Editor-in-Chief of the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, wrote an open letter to "Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World."

(Excerpt)

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a strong proponent of democracy and freedom of religion. The newspaper respects the right of any human being to practise his or her religion. Serious misunderstandings in respect of some drawings of the Prophet Mohammed have led to much anger and, lately, also boycott of Danish goods in Muslim countries.

Please allow me to correct these misunderstandings.

On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like. The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds that they violated our ethical code.

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten attaches importance to upholding the highest ethical standards based upon the respect of our fundamental values. It is so much more deplorable, therefore, that these drawings were presented as if they had anything to do with Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten.

Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.

I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.

As a result of the debate that has been going on about the drawings, we have met with representatives of Danish Muslims, and these meetings were held in a positive and constructive spirit. We have also sought in other ways to initiate a fruitful dialogue with Danish Muslims.

Juste is so sorry. He claims that "the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize."

Michelle Malkin has posted these 12 forbidden cartoons that prompted Juste's apology. She says she has done so "for posterity and in solidarity with the paper's free speech rights."

Examples:









Are they offensive? You decide.

That's the point.

Other newspapers across Europe have taken up this free speech battle and printed the drawings.

France Soir reprinted the cartoons yesterday. Today, managing editor Jacques Lefranc was fired by the paper's owner, Egyptian magnate Raymond Lakah, for publishing them. Although Jacques Lefranc was not available for comment, his wife, Marie-Jeanne, cited that as the reason for her husband's sudden dismissal.

An AP story explains the uproar:

Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet, to prevent idolatry. The drawings have divided opinion within Europe and the Middle East, where they have prompted boycotts of Danish goods, bomb threats and demonstrations against Danish facilities.

Palestinian gunmen briefly took up position outside the European Commission's office Thursday, demanding apologies from the governments of France, Denmark and Norway after newspapers in these countries printed the caricatures.

In Pakistan, more than 300 Islamic students protested, chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France."

...France Soir argued Wednesday that religious dogma cannot be imposed on democratic and secular societies. It carried the headline "Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God" and a cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud.

The publication drew a stern response from the French Foreign Ministry, which said that while freedom of expression is dear to France, it "condemns all that hurts individuals in their beliefs or their religious convictions."

How ironic that France is quick to condemn those offending Muslims while it has turned a blind eye to anti-Semitism in the country!

The French Foreign Ministry's statement is a crock.

I think it stems from an effort to stave off massive rioting among French Muslim youth, the kind that occurred last fall.

Once again, the French surrender.

Not surprisingly, Muslims around the world are not reacting peacefully to this free speech controversy.

Reuters, the news service that balks at calling a terrorist a terrorist, reports:

A dozen Palestinian gunmen surrounded European Union offices in the Gaza Strip demanding an apology for the cartoons, one of which shows Islam's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Muslims consider any images of Mohammad to be blasphemous.

Afghanistan condemned the publication of the caricatures and about 400 Islamic school students set fire to French and Danish flags in protest in the city of Multan in central Pakistan.

These violent reactions and protests play right into the message of some of the cartoons that they are protesting as offensive!

Guns and fire to express outrage over depictions of Mohammed as a violent figure -- yeah, that makes sense.

Some Muslims are upset that a non-Muslim even dared to draw an image of Mohammed.

Malkin notes:

In response to the notion that the West (or Islam) has ever followed the prohibition against depicting Mohammed, Zombie has created the "Mohammed Image Archive," which contains dozens of Mohammed images from throughout history. A must-read.

In the United States, the Constitution protects the right to free speech. It does not protect the right to not be offended by free speech.

In America, free speech is answered with free speech.

For example, in response to a cartoon that one deems offensive, one is free to criticize that cartoon.

That exchange of ideas characterizes open debate and expression, something fundamental to Western societies and democracy.

In an ideal world, all people would respect the beliefs of others and exhibit tolerance. This is not an ideal world.

However, rather than squelching the free speech of the bigoted and the offensive, those spewing hate should be called out on their behavior, via the free speech of the respectful and the tolerant.

An important point: It is appropriate to raise questions about religions, beliefs, and philosophies that threaten basic human rights.

All people are created equal. All belief systems are not. Those that espouse hate and the destruction of humanity are not morally equivalent to those that promote civility, liberty, and human dignity.

I do not think one can remain silent, supposedly in the name of tolerance for others beliefs, while atrocities are being committed.

I have a problem with this.

Unidentified militants planted explosives near several Christian churches and the Vatican Embassy in Iraq, causing few casualties but triggering fresh fears among the minority Christian population.

The near-simultaneous attacks Jan. 29 in Baghdad and Kirkuk, a northern Iraqi city, were launched just as some Sunday afternoon services had ended. A blast targeting a Chaldean Catholic church in Kirkuk left one parishioner and two passers-by dead and one person injured.

...In Baghdad, a wall along the side of the Vatican Embassy suffered damage after a car bomb on the opposite side of the street detonated.

An informed Vatican official told CNS the bomb went off in front of a restaurant, which he said was the probable target of the attack. The official said terrorists in Iraq have often targeted restaurants because an explosion there "causes many victims and much damage."

However, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, apostolic nuncio in Baghdad, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire Jan. 31 that he believed the Vatican nunciature might have been the target "because at the same time there were attacks against churches in Baghdad and Kirkuk."

He added that the string of bombings happened on a Sunday "at the time (of day) when the faithful go to church."

Life for most people, but especially the Christian minority, in Iraq "continues to be very, very difficult," he said. Christians and religious are also increasingly intimidated or threatened, he added.

...The nunciature and five Christian churches were in the vicinity of six bombs, five of which exploded within a half-hour period.

A bomb planted close to the Chaldean church, St. Mari, in Kirkuk caused the most damage with three people dead and one injured, according to news reports. The other blast in Kirkuk was not far from the Syrian Orthodox Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, Latin-rite Archbishop Jean Sleiman of Baghdad told CNS. Six people were injured in that attack, according to a Jan. 29 report by the Italian-based missionary news agency AsiaNews.

On the outskirts of Baghdad, a car bomb was found and safely disabled near the Chaldean church of St. Joseph, Archbishop Sleiman said.

But a bomb exploded near another Chaldean church in Baghdad and a different explosion hit a Seventh-day Adventist church in the center of the capital, the archbishop said. Neither attack caused any casualties.

The Jan. 29 attacks were the first against churches since parliamentary elections in December. The last series of attacks against Christian places of worship occurred in 2004 when a string of bombings hit churches in Mosul and Baghdad, leaving hundreds of causalities.

The effect of the bombings on the country's Christians has been "negative, devastating," Archbishop Sleiman said.

Fear of terrorist violence has forced many Christians to leave their homes as "immigration often seems the only way out of this inferno," he said.

Why aren't the "honourable fellow citizens of the Muslim World" that Juste appeals to protesting this destruction and murder?

I think it's immoral to sit back and refuse to condemn such violence for fear that some Muslims might be offended.

As a Catholic, I have been offended by many cartoons, editorials, and articles ridiculing my faith. However, I do not respond to any of this in a violent fashion, and I condemn any Catholic that would. Instead, I choose to peacefully express my opinions.

What makes the violent reaction of some Muslims to the cartoons first printed in Jyllands-Posten even more disturbing is the fact that certain Muslim factions feel free to print racist and anti-Semitic cartoons.

These Muslims obviously do not exhibit the tolerance and respect that they demand from others.

According to Arutz Sheva:

The official newspaper of the PA continues to regularly publish hate cartoons against Israel and Jews.

...The most recent anti-Semitic cartoon was published in the PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadeeda on May 13. It depicts a Jew impaling the northern region of a map of the Arab/Islamic world with the flag of Israel, drawing blood, while at the other end is seen an Arab holding a white flag, hanging upside down.



The cartoon was drawn by Omayya Joha, a well-known Arab cartoonist who is particularly popular among PA Arabs for her radical opinions and vehemently anti-Semitic cartoon portrayals of Jews and Israel. Joha’s husband was a Hamas terrorist who was killed in a shootout with Israeli forces in 2003. Joha herself identifies with Hamas beliefs.

The following are two cartoons drawn by Omayya Joha which appeared in Al Hayat Al Jadeeda, the Palestinian Authority’s official daily newspaper during April 2005 in which stereotyped Jewish figures are depicted.





Here are more examples of Muslim freedom of expression.


Simply put, militant Muslims cannot have it both ways.

They cannot promote hate in their speech and through their actions, and then claim to be justified in their attempts to hold the free world hostage for its speech.

FREE SPEECH FOR ALL.