RSS Feed MenuMy latest column for CNN.com discusses the recent attacks on Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks and argues that by failing to seriously punish the attackers, the authorities are only inviting further violence.
Firebombed. Cyberattacked. Attacked by a shouting mob.
That’s what happened to Lars Vilks in the week ending May 16.
And if you think: “Well thank goodness my week was a lot quieter,” think again. The attacks on Vilks were an attack on you too.
Lars Vilks is a Swedish cartoonist. In the summer of 2007, he was invited to submit three drawings to an exhibition sponsored by the town of Tallerud. The exhibition’s theme: “the dog in art.” Vilks produced three pencil sketches of street dogs with human faces, the face (Vilks said) of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. …
On Tuesday of this week, Vilks appeared at the University of Uppsalla to lecture on his art and ideas. Two-hundred-fifty people passed through metal detectors to hear him speak. They never got the chance.
Click here to read the rest.
charlesreardon // May 17, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Europe has become paralyzed by political correctness. It will only get worse.
Chekote // May 17, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Charles
Really? How do you explain the banning of the burqa in France and soon in Belgium?
Carney // May 17, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I think we should be hesitant about identifying ourselves with some of these “artists”, who remind me of the type who dunk crucifixes in urine and smear images of Mary with elephant feces.
However juvenile and offensive they are, however, they need to be defended from violent thugs. I’d rather live in a world where they can do their gross thing (free from having to pay for it with my tax dollars, mind you) than one in which we are all subject to physical intimidation.
The article also has this sentence: “In March, police in Ireland arrested seven people on charges of conspiring to murder Vilks.”
What in the world has happened when Ireland, IRELAND, has this problem too? Is anyone minding the immigration system?
jakester // May 17, 2010 at 3:03 pm
I wonder how Obama is going to respond to this, seeing how the liberals love the First Amendment so much? Honestly, I know you try to keep a restrained tone around here. But concerning that guy with the mask and that hateful placard, why can’t there be some patriotic yob around to heave a brick or two his way?
jerseyboy // May 17, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Liberals really do face a dilemma: How to remain champions of First Amendment rights while also adhering to their politically correct worldview that views immigrants from the developing world and members of minority groups as essentially victims of the West. For example, will they uphold the free speech rights of individuals who express views critical of immigrants, or or minorities, or Islam? Right now it doesn’t look good.
Oldskool // May 17, 2010 at 5:09 pm
“I wonder how Obama is going to respond to this, seeing how the liberals love the First Amendment so much?”
“How to remain champions of First Amendment rights while also adhering to their politically correct worldview ”
I think it’s safe to say he’s already addressed the subject at least in a broad way. Secondly, threats and assault are illegal in this country so the first ammendment buggaboo is a red herring.
Thirdly, philosophical purity is a problem that plagues the Right in this country as much as it does any religion.
jerseyboy // May 17, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“Thirdly, philosophical purity is a problem that plagues the Right in this country as much as it does any religion.”
Oh really? Where was the philosophical purity when President Bush proposed — and conservatives rejected — his comprehensive immigration reform plan? Where was the purity when the GOP nominated as its standard bearer John McCain, a man who has championed many causes that conservatives hate? The idea that the Right moves in lockstep is a familiar trope, but it is too easily disproved by actual examples.
Demosthenes // May 17, 2010 at 5:25 pm
I fail to see the political relevance this debate has in the USA. I have yet to meet a single person — either conservative or liberal — that agrees we should restrict free speech to apease a bunch of religious fanatics. Really.
Oldskool // May 17, 2010 at 6:19 pm
jerseyboy // May 17, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“The idea that the Right moves in lockstep is a familiar trope, but it is too easily disproved by actual examples.”
If Mr Frum has repeated one theme this past year it’s his party’s problem with screamers on the Right making unrealistic, fanatical demands of their party and their candidates. An actual purity test has even been issued to rate candidates and I think they had to have a score of 80-something. So it’s not something that a reasonable person can deny.
Ruminant // May 17, 2010 at 7:47 pm
jerseyboy // May 17, 2010 at 5:19 pm
“Where was the philosophical purity when President Bush proposed — and conservatives rejected — his comprehensive immigration reform plan?”
Isn’t that an example of this purity? Or should we actually consider Bush to be a conservative?
“Where was the purity when the GOP nominated as its standard bearer John McCain, a man who has championed many causes that conservatives hate?”
Why do you think John McCain did a 180 on so many of those “causes” between Bush’s reelection and the 2008 election cycle? Why do you think he pandered for support from Jerry Falwell, the man that McCain denounced as an “agent of intolerance” in 2000? McCain’s “maverick-ness” and “straight talking” had damaged his “purity”.
blowtorch_bob // May 17, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Maybe whoever was behind this attack was under the (false) impression that this Sweedish cartoonist was harbouring WMD’s and was in the process of getting ready to use them.
jakester // May 17, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Demosthenes
South Park?
I am not saying the cons have that much better a track record on this issue, despite all the smoke and fire coming out the mouths of talk radio hot air vents. But when we let some creep’s website intimidate South Park or the UN essentially pass resolution promoting Islamic protection without anyone in power taking a vigorous defense, we essential lose. Now with the UN promoting cretins like Khaddaffy to human rights and no major protest by the West, they seem to be winning.
SFTor1 // May 18, 2010 at 1:00 am
I think the solution is simple here:
1. Take steps to co-exist day-to-day, in the street and in the workplace. Work for understanding and harmony.
2. Protect the free speech of artists. This is non-negotialble.
I am not sure I understand the relevance of putting Mohammad’s face on a dog. A dog is an unclean animal in Moslem countries. Sounds like it was done for maximum shock value.
That does not change my position on free speech for artists, but does explain Moslem ire. The hotheads who start shouting, or attempting, bloody murder must be dealt with. Firmly.
ottovbvs // May 18, 2010 at 7:43 am
jerseyboy // May 17, 2010 at 4:42 pm
“Liberals really do face a dilemma: How to remain champions of First Amendment rights while also adhering to their politically correct worldview that views immigrants from the developing world and members of minority groups as essentially victims of the West. ”
…….Another one of those strawmen so beloved of the right…….who says liberals view minority groups as victims of the west? ……some might, just as some Republican idiots believe Obama wasn’t born in the US……..generally speaking Liberals are as you accept the principle champions of First Amendment rights whereas Conservatives are regularly trying to abridge them…….I don’t expect this to change.
Carney // May 18, 2010 at 8:35 am
Demosthenes // May 17, 2010 at 5:25 pm
“I fail to see the political relevance this debate has in the USA. I have yet to meet a single person — either conservative or liberal — that agrees we should restrict free speech to apease a bunch of religious fanatics. Really.”
Demosthenes, leftist and Islamist thuggery often shouts down or silences speech it dislikes in the US, especially on college campuses. Try opening a pro-Israel card table at a prestige private university, an average large state school, or a small liberal arts school that is not run by the religious right. You will quickly be confronted by shouting bullies, who will take and destroy your literature, at the very least. Controversial conservative speakers face death threats designed to cancel events, and stage storming, loud chants, even efforts to physically shove him off the stage.
Cowardly university administrators usually respond with weak condemnations, if any, of the thuggery, while doing nothing to the thugs.
ottovbvs // May 18, 2010 at 8:50 am
Carney // May 18, 2010 at 8:35 am
“leftist and Islamist thuggery often shouts down or silences speech it dislikes in the US, especially on college campuses.”
…….right wing thuggery is of course a completely unknown phenomena on American campuses……conservatives “always the pathetic little victims”……yeah right
Oldskool // May 18, 2010 at 8:55 am
May 20th, dubbed “Draw Mohamed Day” should be insightful, at least as far as how many news organizations are willing to show drawings. So far they’ve been reluctant to offend the crazies, not unlike how poorly they did their jobs leading up to Iraq, intimidated by charges of being unpatriotic, unAmerican, etc.
Carney // May 18, 2010 at 10:16 am
otto, you’re living in an imaginary world if you think that right-wingers dominate college campuses, and routinely intimidate, shout down, and assault leftist speakers. There is no equivalence.
jerseyboy // May 18, 2010 at 11:51 am
Which presidential candidate in 2008 had a record showing a greater willingness to depart from his party’s positions on issues: Obama or McCain? The objective empirical answer to that question is John McCain. And yet it is the GOP that gets accused of rigidly insisting on ideological purity in its candidates! Please.
ottovbvs // May 18, 2010 at 11:56 am
Carney // May 18, 2010 at 10:16 am
“otto, you’re living in an imaginary world if you think that right-wingers dominate college campuses, and routinely intimidate, shout down, and assault leftist speakers.”
…………..since I live in the real world I know that right wingers don’t generally speaking dominate college campuses………but I do know that fringe groups of left and right both sometimes step over the line between legit protest and thuggery…….I also know that rightist like to elevate these sorts of incidents when they come from the left into “crimes against humanity” but ignore similar behavior from their own side……as we know from Florida in 2000 organized thuggery on the right is hardly unknown
ottovbvs // May 18, 2010 at 11:59 am
jerseyboy // May 18, 2010 at 11:51 am
“The objective empirical answer to that question is John McCain. And yet it is the GOP that gets accused of rigidly insisting on ideological purity in its candidates! Please.”
…….So why’s he being primaried by a hard right opponent?……ever heard of the expression “engage brain before opening mouth”
ktward // May 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm
otto, you’re living in an imaginary world if you think that right-wingers dominate college campuses
True, the lion’s share of activism on college campuses leans undeniably Left. But then, these are institutions of higher learning, so …
Anyhoo, on these same college campuses, students are able to freely choose their activist activities, Left or Right. Indeed, the CRNC is quite alive and well across our nation’s campuses, and quite active:
http://www.crnc.org/site/c.npIUKWOrFkG/b.5771869/k.BFBE/Home.htm
Here’s where the comparison of college activism gets interesting:
I challenge anyone to find an uber-liberal college–private or state-funded–that, by virtue of any policy, restricts its students’ non-violent activities or speech. In contrast, Liberty U–one of our nation’s Top 10 far-right colleges–does exactly that. Indeed, it is a notoriously restrictive environment in terms of activity and speech. LU is the very institution of ‘higher learning’ that pulled its co-sponsorship from CPAC because of GOProud’s involvement.
College students are, by definition, young people: often quick to react, quick to anger. So chest-bumping and yelling is to be expected when ideologies collide–particularly among the heavily testosteroned dudes. This behavior is not reflective of any ideology, per se, it is inherent to their life stage. I would argue, in fact, that college is precisely where these passionate–if sometimes volatile–minds learn the lessons of patience and restraint.
And I’m officially off-topic. oops.
ktward // May 18, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Back on topic.
There is a deeply embedded cultural element at work here, that political pundits either intentionally ignore or are inexcusably ignorant of.
Western political ideology is founded on our fundamental belief in freedoms of speech and religious expression. The RR’s aims notwithstanding, from our earliest ages we are taught these fundamentals, in principle, in both rural and urban environments.
e.g. This is precisely the reason why we not only tolerate, but protect, the neo-nazis’ right to march in Skokie, of all places.
Muslim ME political ideology is very different: their religious tenets are very much infused into their political institutions. Now, we can indulge in self-righteous judgment of this fact, or we can acknowledge it and strategize how we might peacefully co-exist with it.
Admittedly, easier said than done.
My own western sensibilities–the birth mother of my genetic embrace of the satiric skewering of any and every sacred cow–offer a comfy knee-jerk: wanna f**k with Islam? Have at it. Rushdie, Scandi artists, anyone. Hey, I’m a Chicagoan– Harold Washington in a garter was awesome.
But the academic Sociologist within me compels a less reactionary–and reality-based–look at the bigger picture.
The vast–VAST–majority of practicing Muslims do not recognize any violence as a justified response to any perceived affront to their religious sensibilities. Given the world’s Muslim numbers, if such a response were justified, we’d be neck-deep in WW3 by now.
So get a f**king grip already.
Extremist ideology that engages in terrorism is not new. Did we ban every Irish immigrant to the US because of the activities of the IRA?
I see Muslim extremism very much the same as I see Christian extremism: violent reaction born of frustration and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness. Not an excuse, by any means, but an explanation that informs combative strategy.
Meantime, individual response to specific extremist threat–a la Dr. Tiller, Comedy Central, Rushdie, Scandi artists, whatever–is just that: case by case, all relevant factors weighed.
David.
I’m aware that your ideo narrative firmly revolves around portraying the Muslim community as inherently evil. But this piece, especially, suggests you’re becoming desperately exploitative.
JeninCT // May 19, 2010 at 11:08 pm
So, Frum, will you participate in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day? The more the merrier!