A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS

Several Scandanavian countries' newspapers have published satirical cartoons featuring the likeness of the Muslim prophet Muhammed in a manner that many Muslims deem offensive. (Apparently, the Qu-Ran prohibits using the image of Muhammed - whether it prohibits non-Muslims from doing so is unclear; at any rate, surely, worshippers of Allah should know that non-worshippers are not bound by such strictures, just as worshippers of Yahweh should know that Christians are not bound to observe Passover).

The authors of these images, who are Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, claim that the images are meant to make a point about the folly of persecuting others because of religion. These authors would seem to have as much a right to do this as much as anyone these days; Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, while admittedly an unadulterated anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, vitriolic bigot, prowled the streets of Europe openly mocking Muslims to their face, he was one day killed defenseless by one of these individuals (just as were 3,000 people on September 11th - the only difference being that the people who died on September 11th were not taunting their accusers that day).

In an "ideal" world, religious bigotry would not exist (nor would many of the absurdities that constitute the core of religious thinking). Much of Van Gogh's mutterings constituted unvarnished, banal hate speech. However, in the United States, at least, hate speech is protected speech, as it should be, under the theory that in a country founded upon encouragement of debate rather than expulsion of dissidents/dissidence, it is better to allow hate speech to be countered by opposing speech than to stifle the original speech by suppressing it (of course, the "clear and present danger doctrine" does not protect speech that is likely to incite immediate violence or breach of the peace, when the speaker knows that the speech is likely to produce such a result).

Europe, perhaps in reaction to its having been the world's pre-eminent bastion of bigotry for so many years, has passed all kinds of hate-speech codes. This effort to eradicate discrimination has failed and has indeed produced the opposite effect: race riots in France, the murder of Theodore Van Gogh, etc. Laws banning garden-variety hate speech come perilously close to laws prescribing morality in general, and we all (sans Republicans) know how effective THOSE laws are.

To the Muslims who are offended by the cartoons and who have resorted to rioting and setting fires: have you not considered that those whose religions differ from yours are allowed to publish what they have published? Have you even attempted to consider what these people have tried to say? Are not your acts of pillaging the height of hypocrisy, given your insistent pleas that the Western world respect your culture and traditions? Even if the cartoons were in bad taste, many editorials in the Scandanavian countries have apologized for them. In contrast, when Salman Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses, published that work, there were numerous fatwas (religious edicts) issued for his death because the work dared to be critical of Islam. One reason why other societies have respect for each other is because those societies recognize the ability and right of the other societies to engage in self-criticism, and criticism of other socieities, without fear of death. The radical Muslim world is perceived, correctly, for the most part, as quite monolithic in its disapproval of dissenting viewpoints concerning Islam (to date, not one fatwah from a notable mufti or mullah has been issued against Osama bin Laden). If that world wants to continue to claim the right to stifle dissent and to kill others for allegedly mocking the name of Allah, so be it (well, not really. You know what I mean). Such a claim is a manifestation of their values. But don't expect other nations to refrain from expressing their values (even if a bit hypocritically) in response. Wouldn't it be great if the authors of the cartoons could actually DEBATE the rioters over the meaning and alleged offensiveness of these cartoons? That is precisely the kind of dialogue this world needs, and in this case, at least, there is one side that is preventing the dialogue from taking place. And we don't even know why, aside from the proffered explanation, which, if pushed to its logical extreme, imposes speech codes on the rest of the world? Imagine if someone attempted to do that on Muslims. Would that be fair? No. Why can't the double standard be recognized, especially by people who would be the first to recognize that they themselves have been the victims of a double standard at the hands of the West? Two wrongs don't make a right.