"We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression. We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."
No, really, that's what the EU Justice and Security Commissioner is saying, according to Reuters:
The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.
In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion.
"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right." ...
Frattini, a former Italian foreign minister, said millions of Muslims in Europe felt "humiliated" by the cartoons.
His proposed voluntary code would urge the media to respect all religious sensibilities but would not offer privileged status to any one faith.
This isn't just about the EU's much more "reasonable" and "balanced" approach to free speech -- in words that I've heard from those who prefer the European approach to the American one, and would urge that it be adopted in America as well.
It's also about the EU's approach to appeasement, and to surrender. And don't tell me that the unnamed "consequences" are just public disapproval and strained international relations. When you say something like that against a backdrop of thugs burning embassies and killing people in reaction to your citizens' speech, appeasement and surrender are exactly what's going on, "voluntary" rules or not. Millions of Europeans should feel humiliated that one of their super-government's officials is even proposing this.
Thanks to Sister Toldjah for the pointer.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "EU-Ministers Considering Arab Demands":
- Let's Give the Muslim World a Message:
Anyway, my point is that your criticism of the EU's free speech policy is valuable, but simply labeling it as "appeasement" and "surrender" is basically just needless hyperbole. It adds nothing, really, to the substative conversation that this blog should be about.
Anybody can propose a "voluntary code of conduct." But coming from the state, it seems more coercive. Put in a European context, it is conceivable that it could be a precursor to a law. Best to nip this in the bud.
Original Post:
Karl Popper on Denmark, Iraq and Kurdistan
In VC’s endless cataloguing of every offense committed by a Muslim or Arab, you’re usually not this candid about who you view as the enemy. The post shows that very intelligent people can hold a deeply ignorant and offensive worldview. We’ve come to expect this from other posters, but this is a new low for the Board’s namesake.
Professor, do yourself a favor and take some Muslims to lunch. You'll learn that most aren't cheering the killings from the sidelines.
I think that he was just quoting the EU Commissioner:
But I agree that sometimes it's a little shady on this blog re: what people actually believe.
Mess with the Best; Die like the Rest.
EV, you and me at the barricades on this one, my brother.
On another note, everyone keeps referring to "the cartoons." This leads me to believe, but offers no support either way, that everyone's conflating the 12 innocuous (and often funny) published cartoons with the 3 disgusting (and potentially illegal as harassment/intimidation) unpublished ones. Try having a conversation about this issue with a random person--enough people are spouting opinions on all 15 to...well...I almost want to ban them from opining, until I remember what the issue is here.
Our schools are test-driven and knowledge-based. Nothing in the standards says students should learn to think. That has to change.
The gentleman in Trollope: Individuality and moral conduct by Shirley Robin Letwin, helps people begin to appreciate that decisions depend on context. Printing cartoons in a newspaper Denmark is different than shoving placards of cartoons in the face of people on their way to pray.
Funny how the European Union can be right and wrong at the same time.
sock puppetCommissioner Franco Frattini, in an appearance with Mohammed Ahmed Sherif of the World Islamic Call Society, denied having suggested it.EUObserver report is now behind a 'pay to read' wall, so check end of this Samzdata post for an excerpt:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008589.html
If the Muslim world wishes not to be viewed as a monolith, and a violent one at that, it's incumbent on Muslims not to let the Muslim fundamentalists be the only public voice of Islam. As things stand, the violent Muslims seem to be the only ones who speak and are heard.
There is (lots) of violence being committed in the name of Islam. If there's a population of Muslims who don't wish to be associated with the violence and hatred, it's their job to make themselves heard. And if there are no countervailing voices being heard, what should non-Muslims infer? After all, even if "most [Muslims] aren't cheering the killings from the sidelines", their silence and inaction doesn't do the rest of us any good. At best they are neutral. Except they're not, because their silence can only be interpreted as support for those who claim to be speaking in their name.
I seem to recall lots of westerners willing to dissocaite themselves from the actions of the warmongering western governments. One was even called "Not In My Name". Where's the counterpart? Where are the Muslims demanding free speech for all, even if it may insult the Prophet (pbuh)?
Lmao. That would require a great deal of masculinity and courage; I won't hold my breath. Lol.
I agree that vocal Muslim moderates should be supported; but we should be realistic about how vocal we should expect people to be - and under what circumstances we should interpret silence to be support.
Do we really expect large scale demonstrations supporting freedom of speech, or against violence in Syria? Egypt? Iran? It takes a lot less courage to stage a "Not In My Name" demonstration in the U.S. or France than under such governments. Not to mention the non-governmental terrorist reprisals that a moderate Indonesian or Saudi Arabian Muslim might fear.
It's a lot easier to talk the talk when you don't have to walk the walk.
Granted i don't necessarily agree with any curtailment of free speech, but if you look at recent statements and articles by Dr. An-na'im of Emory law, you'd see that these protests are a proxy for resistance that nations are prohibited to perform as a direct result of our historical interference and terror imposed in the name of democracy and free speech.
if we have the gall to tout free speech, we better start thinking about other human rights such as the right to life and liberty.
I'm pretty sure that these protests are a direct result of years of cultivation of a "We versus Them" mindset that poses Islam versus the West. Various politicans and religious leaders vying for power have found such a mindset quite useful in harnessing people-power, while distracting persons from the abuse they inflict.
In any event, I don’t mean to split hairs. I certainly take him at his word when he asserts that he doesn’t view the Muslim world as homogenous, but he’s kidding himself if he doesn’t recognize that this blawg has a decidedly anti-Muslim (not simply anti-radical) odor to it.
Amen to your latest comment.
I won’t be commenting here anymore. It’s too bad that a blawg that offers truly remarkable insights on the law is so diminished by a foreign policy amateurism that views Chirstopher Hitchens as the voice of reason.
I think I read that story. Borges, right?
Do we really expect large scale demonstrations supporting freedom of speech, or against violence in Syria? Egypt? Iran?
Well, that's pretty much the point. We want to hear from moderates because it shows that the moderates have influence. Whether the moderates lack influence because they don't exist, or because they'd get shot for speaking out, doesn't matter--either way they aren't going to be affecting events much (unless there's a revolution).
And it would be perfectly safe to have a large-scale demo in any of the states Islamofascism considers the enemy, which is to say, Europe and the English-speaking world.
I'd like to see a really, really difficult combination: A large scale demonstration by moderate Muslims against violence directed by Islamofascists against Jews. If that's too tough, how about non-Jewish non-Muslims, like us?
And I won't ask that it be held in Syria. Chicago would be fine.
There have been a number of observations that Germany during the Second World War held a large number of Germans who weren't warmongering anti-Semites. So? All they got for their virtue was being hammered into mush. Didn't do us or themselves any good.
Gee. Ya think that lesson might be promoted to moderate Muslims? Can't hurt.
This case falls under the general principle of:
There's something clearly and severely wrong with this policy, but that does not mean that its not part of the best total policy all things considered.
To be more concrete, I can't think of any reasons why the E.U. "best practices guidelines" are inconsistent with policies that would seek to increase the growth of a middle class in Saudi Arabia (or wherever), seek to reduce the isolation of European Muslims, or allow Muslim women to participate more thoroughly in public life. Only careful study can determine whether self-censorship would promote or inhibit Europe's (or America's) efforts to accomplish these goals.
People get the government they deserve.
The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner.
The actual mass deportations were anything but “orderly and humane.”
While such actions are ghastly to contemplate in a modern context, we would be foolish to ignore the possibility this will happen unless the Europeans are willing to surrender. The demographic time bomb is ticking.
Consequences, indeed.
There are slippery slopes and then there are slippery slopes and then there are the slipperiest of slippery slopes. Free expression, as a foundational and core principle, is among the latter. Not only is it foundational but given the personal, inter-personal and broader societal psychologies involved (e.g., Stockholm syndrome, political demagoguery), the potential for such a core principle and foundational right to be eroded by kinder and gentler authoritarians, such as the goodly and earnest Justice and Security Commissioner, is conspicuous, or it certainly should be.
"People get the government they deserve" gets to the very heart of it. In ceding oversight of such basic principles to non-accountable authoritarians - even the very kindest and gentlest of authoritarians, together with their furrowed brows and bureaucratic careers and accomplishments - they will be getting almost precisely what they deserve. If they are lucky they'll get no worse than that.