I’m finding a common thread in many of the major stories and major issues of the day: there’s a genuine problem but either the proposed solutions have little to do with the problem or none of the solutions are remotely palatable. Not to mention that the solutions are frequently unimaginable under any reasonable theory of law. Take the case of the cartoonist, Molly Norris, for example.
As you may be aware Ms. Norris was a cartoonist for the Seattle Times. She was the person who first advocated an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”. I’m not sure whether she was being waggish, thought the idea was a good way of demonstrating that freedom of speech means the freedom to criticize, or merely thought of it as a Purloined Letter-style ploy. How better to insulate a few voices speaking out against repression than by surrounding them with millions of other voices.
I thought the idea was rude and uncaring but I completely accept how others might differ in their views.
As a consequence of her suggestion—not her actions since she promptly withdrew her proposal—the death threats she has received, credible enough to cause the FBI to warn her, have driven her from her work, her home, and her name. As the paper put it she has “gone ghost”, abandoning the life she had known.
I agree with Clifford May that this is a terribly sad and dangerous situation:
Where does this leave us? Significantly less free than we used to be. One may satirize, criticize, and even demonize Christians and Jews. Such speech remains protected byAmerica ‘s Constitution. But when it comes to Islam and the sensibilities of overly sensitive Muslims, constitutional protections are no longer to be taken seriously. To even discuss these matters, as I am now doing, risks – nay, ensures – being castigated as an Islamophobe.
But the alternative is to watch Molly Norris “go ghost” and pretend that no historic changes are occurring. It is not just Molly but America and the West that are moving, changing, “essentially wiping away” our identity. Are we still the “land of the free and the home of the brave”?
The question that strikes me is what is to be done? None of the alternatives that occur to me is appealing:
- Self-censorship. This delegates the setting of the agenda to those willing to exercise or threaten the most violence. Does that sound like a better world? Not to me.
- More acts of defiance. That’s precisely what put poor Molly Norris in the fix she’s in. I’m rather concerned that the approach does not take religious fanaticism seriously. Who is more likely to tire? Those mocking Islam or those who think they are defending it?
- Molly Norris and the future Molly Norrises could receive round-the-clocck FBI protection for the rest of their lives. Heckuva way to live your life.
- Following Mr. May’s implied suggestion political leaders, elite journalists, celebrities, and human rights organizations could condemn the situation. What would that accomplish?
- All religious institutions could be monitored to insure they’re not preaching hatred or violence. They could be audited to ensure they’re not being supported from abroad. Cost considerations aside, First Amendment considerations, anyone? Who gets to decide what “hatred” is? Violence?
- Muslim religious institutions could be monitored to insure they’re not preaching hatred or violence. They could be audited to ensure they’re not being supported from abroad. Equal protection?
- Islam could be banned in the United States. Again, First Amendment?
- Immigrants from designated countries could be banned from the United States. Those already here and non-citizens could be ejected.
Other suggestions? Do any of those sound as though they will make the world a better place? Let alone accomplish the objective?
I think that the issue here is getting confused. I’m not aware of cartoons directly criticizing Christianity or Judaism in a blanket statement. I imagine that if Jesus Christ was depicted in a severely negative light, there’d be some uproar from the right.
Now, I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t criticize certain Muslims or certain practices. Feel free to lampoon anyone for their views. If there’s a Taliban cleric that said something ridiculous about say, the role of women, draw him and point out how ridiculous his views are.
But to say Islam (or Mohammad, which is really the issue here) is at fault makes no more sense than a cartoon that makes Jesus out to be a pedophile because of scandals in the Catholic church.
The real issue is making it seem like it’s a set of religious beliefs, and not individuals, at fault. I think this is largely because we think of “Islam” and not certain Muslim groups, sects or followers without the subtle understandings we have of say, Christian or even Jewish groups in our culture.
I don’t mean to be rude and uncaring, but what did Ms. Norris expect? She initiated some organized insult directed at violent killers.
What comes across is that there are a dangerous number of people willing to kill or be killed for the Prophet they believe is being insulted, and Ms. Norris wants to boost a positive-liberty interpretation of the First Amendment, but is unwilling to die for the First Amendment. I think she concedes the point that the value of her symbolic protest was a trivial one.
PD:
While I agree with you, isn’t the final outcome of that self-censorship, forced on us by a violent minority? What’s next? Burkas?
TimH:
Christians may have complained about Robert Mapplethorpe’s works but he didn’t die by being gunned down by a Christian. Offensive depictions of Christian images are a commonplace.
I wouldn’t call it self-censorship; I would call it self-restraint. I am not about to walk into certain areas of my city today and shout racial epithets. I may not survive.
I don’t like the word self-censorship here. To me that phrase refers to government restrictions that are so unclear that reasonable people will be precluded from lawful speech. When a major network trying to maximize viewers avoids insulting a portion of it’s viewership, I call that capitalism. It does not mean that in places like blogs or bars that robust and/or exagerrated criticism of Islam does not take place.