Here are my not-terribly-brilliant or original observations on the affair of the recent Mohammad cartoon shootings. In no particular order.
a) I saw the cartoon that won the contest. Please, let's not have anybody talk in this case about those evil, mean, disgusting, pornographic, blah, blah. This is straightforward political satire and protest against the "don't draw Mohammad" sharia restriction.
b) The bullies of the left who are blaming Pamela Geller and her contest for the murderous attack against them are despicable.
c) That the FBI has not contacted Geller is significant, chilling, and revealing.
d) That the would-be-murderers of jihad were gunned down in a matter of seconds, in contrast to the murders and long hunt in the Charlie Hebdo affair, demonstrates the difference between France and Texas. Good for Texas.
And
e) Have you heard about the Facebook angle? (This is the one place where perhaps I will be telling readers something they didn't already know.)
The cartoonist who won the contest, Bosch Fawstin, temporarily and coincidentally (cough, cough) had his Facebook account suspended because he would not give Facebook his address. Let me add that generally in my experience Facebook allows users to skip supplying an address. While Facebook has been cracking down on its real names policy lately (targeting priests and monks while making an explicit exception for drag queens, I might add), I do not know of any policy requiring the user to supply his address. That this demand came to Fawstin at this time is no coincidence, of course. The conservative media got involved and his account access was restored, without, I gather, any apology.
The bullies of the left have been feeling their oats lately, mostly in the area of homosexuality. The unholy meeting of minds between them and the warriors of jihad (who would kill the leftists themselves in a heartbeat) is something no one could have predicted thirty years ago. In one sense it defies rational explanation, since the Muslim ideology is the stuff of the leftists' nightmares, a perfect caricature (but all too real) of misogyny and actual, personal hatred of homosexuals.
In another sense, though, it is just another case of those without honor coming together to try to exploit each other. Like the demon-possessed characters in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength or the demons in his Screwtape Letters, who put on a parody of mutual cooperation and loyalty while all the while hoping to be the last left standing and to be given the others to devour, the leftist activists and the Muslim murderers use each other for their own ends on the assumption that they will be the winners. Neither group believes in freedom, of course--neither old-fashioned civil libertarian freedom nor Christian freedom--and this provides a surprising point of agreement between them. What do the shrieking harpies (or furies) of tolerance care about the freedom to draw Mohammad? That isn't what they are into themselves anyway. Suppress that freedom and, inter alia, you suppress the social conservatives and the Christians. Sounds like a good deal to them.
Those of us who believe in freedom of any legitimate kind whatsoever, whether it be the freedom to draw Mohammad or the freedom not to bake a homosexuality-celebrating cake, are in for a rough ride. The government and corporate bullies of the West are getting together with their unlikely bedfellows, the blood-stained bullies of jihad. There is no ambiguity about their joint target.
Comments (24)
Sometimes you need to give a bully a bloody nose to teach him a lesson. Otherwise, he will terrorize the schoolyard. Sometimes you need to give offense just to show that you can.
Posted by steve hays | May 8, 2015 3:08 PM
Yes, that was what I liked about the winning cartoon. It expressed that very directly--defiance of the bullies is a thing in itself. Mohammad is yelling (cum scimitar), "You can't draw me!" and the artist, a character in his own cartoon, answers, "That's why I draw you." It's clever, and it makes the point.
Posted by Lydia | May 8, 2015 3:49 PM
While driving I often listen to Catholic radio. Most of the hosts are politically conservative. A couple of days ago the guy doing "Right Here, Right Now" fired on PG for being irresponsible as have a number of others on the right. She totally lucked out here. There was a rent - a - cop who was a real cop and who could shoot straight under pressure and the two wanna - be terrorists were total idiots.
Having to tolerate self-promoters who are willing to use others as cannon fodder is a bug not a feature of our freedom. I guess we should long for the days when her need for attention merely involved the beach, a martini, and a bikini.
We might also remember that she had no problem denying others the freedom she demands and religious freedom at that.
Security for a one-off is cheap, be it Texas or France. Hiring full time, weapons competent security is pricy and may have been beyond CH's ability.
This has nothing to do with left/right and everything to do with prudence and commonsense. (I'm being generous here in assuming this was blind self-promoting by a limited person as opposed to a deliberate effort to sharpen the differences with a body count.)
Posted by al | May 8, 2015 5:06 PM
Al, you are as usual both annoying and tediously obscure. I have no doubt that you have something or other in mind when you claim that Geller denies others "the freedom she demands and religious freedom at that." I also have little doubt that, when you supply the background to your talking point, wherever you picked it up (it's probably being retailed, whatever it is, at left-wing sites all over the Internet, like most of your talking points), I will think your attempted tu quoque pathetically inadequate, as most of your tu quoques are. But you will have succeeded in wasting my time while I look it up and explain why.
As far as prudence and common sense, the ban on drawing Mohammad and the threats to the lives of those who do so *is itself* a threat to our freedom in this country. Defying it is a legitimate speech-act of a free people. If all attempts to defy bullies are wrong because they are contrary to "prudence and common sense," then your version of "prudence and common sense" is incompatible with freedom from Muslim oppression. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And, yeah, there have been some fools on the so-called "right" who will throw under the bus anybody who is "insensitive to Muslims." That's really really dumb. As they may discover to their cost someday.
Posted by Lydia | May 8, 2015 5:31 PM
I might as well add here that I don't even particularly *like* Pamela Geller. But if we are to talk about what this is not about, this is not about whether I personally particularly like Pamela Geller. Is it about left and right? Well, yes, it is. Those who think they are on the right and are foolish wimps on this issue are, to that extent, acting like the left.
Posted by Lydia | May 8, 2015 5:35 PM
Al speaks as if, sickened by the lassitude of the political and legal system, she went off and joined a mob to burn down a CVS: you know, something crazy, destructive and evil, like looting businesses and assaulting journalists.
Posted by Paul J Cella | May 8, 2015 10:30 PM
I'm pretty sure it involves her activism against the ground zero mosque. I suspect that if a church wanted to put a new building on the site of a bombed abortion clinic and was denied a permit, he'd just call it a zoning regulatory issue.
Posted by Mike T | May 9, 2015 5:38 AM
Ah, thanks, Mike. Because having an opinion against building a mosque on the site of Ground Zero is *just like* threatening and attempting to murder people for drawing Mohammad. And is an attempt to deny Muslims religious freedom in the U.S. Pathetic, as usual.
Posted by Lydia | May 9, 2015 9:39 AM
"I'm pretty sure it involves her activism against the ground zero mosque."
And Mike gets the cigar. I assumed that everyone remembered and assumed that no one on this site would trivialize any aspect of religious freedom.
"... he'd just call it a zoning regulatory issue."
Any use of a piece of land in a jurisdiction with a zoning code is by definition a "zoning regulatory issue."
"...site of a bombed abortion clinic..."
If a parcel was zoned for a clinic then I would assume it would also be zoned for other like activities. I would have no problem with a church.
Posted by al | May 9, 2015 10:16 AM
That objections to the Ground Zero mosque are "trivializing religious freedom" is a joke. Getting permits in NYC, especially at that location, is like pulling teeth. It is by no means an automatic process, as witness the difficulties of the Greek Orthodox Church getting permits merely to _rebuild_ after their building was damaged in 9/11. (Funny, I don't hear Al squawking about their religious freedom being denied.) So there was no reason whatsoever why the requisite permits should have been automatic for the vast new building project that included the mosque. As Barry Rubin has pointed out on purely secular grounds, those permits were obviously streamlined in a way that would not have been granted to any other religious body, and far beyond the merits of the organizations involved (again, purely on grounds related to their fitness to complete the project), simply because the city was frantic to avoid the accusation of "Islamophobia." Which is pretty much what one would have expected, given the complexity and difficulty of the New York building regulatory set-up.
Posted by Lydia | May 9, 2015 11:47 AM
By the standards of your side, it's not about religious freedom. If cartoons of mohammed are unnecessarily provocative, how much more provocative is the religion of the 9/11 terrorists trying to put a temple at the scene where an extremely serious crime was committed in its name? The Muslims had the freedom on paper, but no one in their right mind would think that that was a civil use of their freedom.
Posted by Mike T | May 9, 2015 12:14 PM
"That objections to the Ground Zero mosque are "trivializing religious freedom" is a joke."
Now you are pulling a bait and switch. I referenced PG's ideological objections to a mosque. You are now waving your hands and introducing irrelevant items. I'm sure we can find many unhappy folks who faced problems rebuilding.
I live (literally) a continent away and in a rural county hence I am likely going to be unaware of the difficulties the GO folk had (salmon season and rain are front page news here). PG went out of her way to make news with the mosque, I don't recall anything anywhere about the GO's problems but a little googling reveals the Port Authority was involved. Given that the PO is a joint authority (NY & NJ) and problematic as an institution I'm hardly surprised. It is irrelevant to the matter at hand but I'll go on the record as siding with the GO.
Some jurisdictions can be a pain (try pulling one in Santa Monica) and even small ones can have plan check delays. Streamlining may actually be the way things should be. One thing to be careful of is confusing zoning issues with construction issues these are two different matters and zoning is usually the pain as it is area specific while most jurisdictions use the UBC.
Posted by al | May 9, 2015 12:47 PM
Excellent point, Mike T. But then, I suppose as lefties use these terms we can't call building the mosque a violation of "prudence and common sense" (even if it was "blind self-promotion"), because anti-mosque activists were unlikely to kill anybody. So it's only a violation of "prudence and common sense" if the ones whom you are defying are _actually_ murderous bullies and terrorists. _That's_ when the victim gets blamed for "provoking" them.
Posted by Lydia | May 9, 2015 1:15 PM
Mike, these are two different matters. On the one hand, putting innocent people at risk for a publicity stunt is something I wouldn't want to be a part of. On the other, she has a right to have her contest however ill advised.
"If cartoons of mohammed are unnecessarily provocative, how much more provocative is the religion of the 9/11 terrorists trying to put a temple at the scene where an extremely serious crime was committed in its name?"
This is interesting. Are you claiming it would be wrong to put a church on the site of a bombed abortion clinic if the bomber did it in the name of a religion?
Anyway, I don't believe in collective guilt or corruption of blood.
"By the standards of your side..."
As a side matter and with all respect - shrieking harpies, things devouring and being devoured, left this and left that, etc. - the general grasp on the right of what liberal and left is is somewhat lacking and often based on projection. Ideology - so called "first principles" are most of what the right is while the left tends towards issues.
Posted by al | May 9, 2015 1:37 PM
"...anti-mosque activists were unlikely to kill anybody..."
I believe the folks who were proposing the mosque (like our Orthodox friends) followed legal procedures. Did I miss something or is this just more collective guilt?
Posted by al | May 9, 2015 1:41 PM
Let me spell it out for you, Al. (I don't know if you really don't understand my point or are just trying to waste my time.) My point is that you regard the Draw Mohammad contest as pointless self-promotion and contrary to common sense and prudence apparently _because_ those who oppose it are murderous and threaten to kill. This is, of course, giving the ultimate heckler's veto over discourse to the violent. While shaking the finger under the nose of the near-victims of the violent because those near-victims refused to submit to Islam's ridiculous ban on drawing Mohammad. However, you don't level the same accusation against the would-be builders of a mosque at ground zero. Why not? Well, as far as I can tell, because those who opposed them did not actually threaten to kill them, were not actually murderous. So the only people whom you taint with the label of pointless self-promotion, publicity stunt, putting people at risk needlessly, contrary to all prudence and common sense, are those whose _opponents_ are murderous, irrational thugs. You do not similarly taint people with that label who *are in fact* trying to do something extremely insensitive but who are unlikely to provoke murder because their opponents do not happen to be murderous!
It is irrelevant to that point that the would-be mosque builders followed procedure in getting building permits, etc. I already pointed out that Rubin has argued that they were probably ineligible for those permits (which they got anyway) under the normal, secular standards applied in Manhattan, but that didn't make it illegal for them to try.
Posted by Lydia | May 9, 2015 2:17 PM
Yes, putting a church on the site of an abortion clinic bombed by people in the name of Christianity would be wrong unless the event happened a long time ago.
And remember, this comes from someone who would treat abortion as a form of contract-for-hire first degree murder (and punish it accordingly).
Posted by Mike T | May 9, 2015 4:45 PM
Al, who is at fault for the two dead Muslims in Texas?
Everyone else -- don't talk to Al unless he shows clarity on this point.
Posted by Paul J Cella | May 9, 2015 9:26 PM
"Everyone else -- don't talk to Al unless he shows clarity on this point."
Always respectful of authoritah, here is the answer, nothing, as the very question is meaningless.
Don Corleone: "I hope you don't mind the way I keep going over this Barzini business."
Michael: "No, not at all."
Don Corleone: "It's an old habit. I spent my whole life trying not to be careless. Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men."
Don Vito understood tail risk; Michael didn't and most humans don't - evolution hasn't equipped most of us that way. This isn't about PG's freedom, a couple of religious fanatics getting their virgins, or some Texas cop tidying up our gene pool, its about responsibility and not being careless with innocent folks lives. Had the two terrorists been less careless this could have gone really bad.
"Why not? Well, as far as I can tell, because those who opposed them did not actually threaten to kill them, were not actually murderous."
Which is irrelevant, just as the threat of violence around clinics should have an influence on their existence. That we have to fight, kill and perhaps die about some things doesn't mean that we have to fight about everything. There are enough situations where the stakes will require measures to be taken. We don't have to manufacture them and we certainly don't have to defend the morons who crave confrontation - enough of that will come on its own.
To be fair I will allow that getting this right is hard. Invading Iraq after 911 was clearly an over-reaction while failing to deal properly with treason after the Civil War was a clear under-reaction.
Lydia, viewing this through a heckler's veto lens is sort of trivializing as is using "insensitivity" as a screen for a zoning permit. I do have to note that you are contradicting yourself here. Also reflexively defending the likes of PG opens one to all sorts of manipulation.
Mike, I understand your point but collective guilt always seems to lead to dark places. It's just not worth going there.
Posted by al | May 10, 2015 4:30 PM
I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be giving much clarity at all in response to Paul's question, which frees me of the annoying necessity of pointing out the silliness in your claim of either inconsistency on my part or of "reflexiveness" in my defense of the Draw Mohammad contest.
Posted by Lydia | May 10, 2015 5:05 PM
Conveniently rounding out the demonstration of moral bankruptcy, the man who can discover no fault in the failed razzia in Texas stills pines for an alternative America where Lincoln and Grant are stained by a Katyn massacre, while tediously lecturing others on the evils of collective guilt.
Posted by Paul J Cella | May 10, 2015 7:35 PM
Hey, fine by me if Paul's command gives you all a face-saving way to stop digging. I thought that the problem with allowing an insensitivity veto but drawing the line at a heckler's veto was problematic as the two sort of merge into one another and threats of violence are something else altogether.
Oh, and hope you're having a happy Mother's Day.
Posted by al | May 10, 2015 7:43 PM
I also got to thinking about one meme that keeps popping up about these riots: the violence of poverty. If we take the SJWs at their word that poverty is an implicit, low-level form of violence (or contains it inextricably), then that means that their efforts to drive non-conformists from public life can be legitimately called acts of violence according to their definitions.
Posted by Mike T | May 10, 2015 8:03 PM
My, I haven't observed this site for years, glad to see it's still operating and that Lydia McGrew is still fighting the good fight.
As to the Texas shooting, perfect illustration of the upside down stance maintained by many on the left as regards the Islamic threat. Here the villain is one Pam Geller, you understand it just couldn't be a starry eyed islamist, prayer rug under one arm, Koran in hand, good works and charitable intentions embedded in the heart. However it follows that the islamists and much of the left have a commonality of antagonisms, an example set forth, if examples were necessary, by our golfer in training currently and sadly in the WH. The man carries heavy burdens, not least his heart rending comments on the rude and recalcitrant Fox News, but struggling none the less for an understanding with the leading cause of terrorism in the world, Iran. You have to it hand it to the man, he knows who the real enemy is, and it isn't Iran.
Posted by Johnt | May 13, 2015 12:41 PM