Here we stand against decency

From the BBC: Muhammad cartoon row intensifies: Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage. I have posted comments over at Ed Brayton's weblog on this topic, they are verbose, but they encapsulate many slivers of my thinking. I will assume you know the general outline of this story, so, from the BBC piece:

• Newspapers across Europe are reprinting the offensive cartoons to show solidarity with the Danish paper.
• An editor at a French newspaper was sacked over this by the owner, his own rationale being that it was "... a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual."
• A Muslim representative stated that France Soir's (the French newspaper) publication was an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France".
• One European Muslim stated that "It was done not to defend freedom of the press, but to spite the Muslims," Mohammad Aman Hobohm said."
• The Muslim response has been to protest, engage in economic sanctions, all the way to bomb threats.

First, hallelujah that European newspapers are standing up for freedom of speech on principle. Second, on the owner of the French newspaper, it was his right to do what he did, I won't attack him for it, newspapers are about money as well as principle, though I'm not totally sure that the monetary utilitarian calculus here works out (a) how many Muslims read this paper? b) is the negative publicity bad publicity? c) do enough non-Muslim French stand ready to show solidarity with their Muslim co-citizens?). But, the point about "convictions of every individual" is important, the reason that freedom of speech is important is because it is in part about the individual being able to say what they want in contradiction of public mores and sensibilities. This individualotry is a special thing, and across all time and space I do not think it is that normal or conventional. Social pressures and stigmas are very strong in many nations, and in the West they were rather strong until recently. The last execution for heresy in the British Isles took place around 1700. That's not that long ago. But less then 2 centuries later the British people were also electing an atheist, Charles Bradlaugh, to public office. Cultures change, and the British and their daughter cultures were among the first to make this transition, the salons of London were packed with intellectual refugees from France in the mid-18th century. Thomas Jefferson's quote that "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg," shows a sensibility that injury must be bodily injury, and the offended sensibilities have no legal status in the liberal order (barring cases like defamation of character of living humans).

Which gets me to the point about "provocation." Yes, it was certainly in part provocation, it tested the bounds of liberality of thought, of mind. Denis Diderot once said "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." Now, that is provocative. The emergence of the liberal order was about toleration of provocation in the interests of plurality and exploration of the full sample space of ideas. Provocation is a necessary byproduct of innovation. That is one reason much of art is so transgressive. To the liberal mind, to provoke is not necessarily an insult! In England the Sikh attack on an offensive theater illustrates the contrasting cognitive mode. Here are some quotes:

Sewa Singh Mandha, the chairman of the Council of Sikh Gurdwaras, said of the theatre: "They keep saying the playwright has the right to her imagination but these imaginations could harm a community. This play will not help race relations in the city."

But the play itself came under fire from Birmingham's Roman Catholic Archbishop, who described it as offensive to all faiths.

In a statement, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols said: "In recent weeks the Sikh community has acted in a reasonable and measured way in representing their deep concerns to the Birmingham Repertory Theatre.

"I regret that the Repertory Theatre, in the interests of the common good, has not been more responsive. Such a deliberate, even if fictional, violation of the sacred place of the Sikh religion demeans the sacred places of every religion."

Note that one individual claimed that imagination could cause harm! What contrast with the sentiment of Jefferson. The second part shows that some religious non-Sikhs sympathized with their outrage. My point is that the behavior we see in the Muslim world lay latent in all cultures, and expresses itself in most, and has government sanction in many. Here in the US I have seen Bill Donohue of The Catholic League moot the idea of blasphemy laws which violate public norms on talk show panels (to the thankful silence of the other talking heads).

Which brings me to my last point, this isn't about Muslims. The big picture isn't that the cartoon reprint was to spite Muslims, who seem to believe that the West is obsessed with them. As I told a self-absorbed friend once, it isn't always about you! But if you don't value freedom of expression, perhaps it is difficult to conceive that that is the real motive behind the relative intransigence on the part of Western governments.

Finally, more power to Muslims if they want to boycott Danish products. I disagree with their opinions and actions but will fight to the death to protect their right do so. To paraphrase Aragorn:

A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our principles and break all bonds of solidarity, but it is not this day. An hour of "sensible" silence when the Age of Men fades into mediocrity, but it is not this day! This day we shout! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!