http://www.nisnews.nl/public/290208_3.htm

The film was “one of the plans for participating in the debate that Geert Wilders has aroused with his proposal to ban the Koran. After extensive research, linking Bible quotations with real political events and acts of violence however produced an insufficient basis for a thorough journalistic production.”

Oops.

Amad, perhaps you know of someone who could do a better job. I personally would really like to see such a film.

How you interpret is an important aspect of the issue.

If Mark Steyn’s work is supressed in Canada, the Koran and Hadiths will also be supressed as there is much in them that is interpreted as a direct call to violence, pedophelia, and hatred.

Be careful what you wish for, as you may get it.

DrM, kindly point out whose position I misrepresented and what their true position is.

I’ll assume you meant freedom of speech. Yes, freedom of speech does exist, but there are exceptions (such as the one I pointed out) so it’s not absolute. There is no such thing as absolute freedom of any kind. All thinking people know this.

But I’ll add my personal opinion: if we do protect/restrict speech, it must be protected/restricted equally without regard to race, religion, or gender. If we protect speech offensive to one religion, we must equally protect speech offensive to all other religions.

I would have liked to have put forth reasoned opinion “out there” in the general discourse. Because general discourse demands a reasoned answer. I’m a non-Muslim who wants to answer.

But I’m finding no support, here.

I’ll continue to try and advance the public debate. But I have to say I’m very disappointed in any support to be found here.

In the USA the removal of this art would involve no double standard. It would be perfectly legal and would not violate freedom of speech.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It’s CONGRESS that must not make laws to restrict speech. There are obvious exceptions, the classic example being shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

The museum is private, owned and operated by the Cathedral (and thus by the Catholic Church). In the US they could display or reject any art they want. You could make an argument about artistic freedom, but the answer to that is that it isn’t a law that prevents the artist from displaying it there. There is no law against creating such art or displaying it elsewhere.

From the US viewpoint, there is no comparison between this and the cartoons published in Danish newspapers.

A closer comparison would be if, say, cartoons portraying Muhammad in homosexual acts were posted in a museum owned by Muslims. There no one would have real objection to the cartoons’ removal.

I remind you of Ofili’s “Holy Virgin Mary”, displayed in the Brooklyn Museum. The depiction of the mother of Jesus included daubs of dung and photos of women’s external sexual organs. There were protest demonstrations and much public outcry. But the “art” remained. The most violent thing that occurred was that someone tried to deface the “art” with white paint. There were no actual riots. No one was killed.

(By the way, I’ve posted under different e-mails on this website, as I have two I use interchangeably and often forget which one I’ve used before — sorry for any confusion! I use “Lois Lane” as a reference to my profession of journalism. My real name is Mary — I’ll try to remember only to use that e-mail here.)

You said: “The only quibble I would have is the “if you’re going to come here, accept the way “we” do things here” part.”

Fair enough — and I didn’t mean it to come across as xenophobic. I truly can’t understand how someone could live somewhere whose culture was so diametrically opposed to their own beliefs. I can only see it as painful in the extreme, especially for devout Muslims. Trying to raise modest young women, for example. And for the more conservative believers, who advocate the harsher punishments of Sharia law, it’s got to seem downright impossible. I’d never get along in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, to speak for myself.

What I meant was we do things the way we do because, by and large, it works for most of us. We celebrate diversity and pluralism, and the only way to protect that is to protect freedom of speech as unrestricted as possible. Of course, there ARE cases (which have been tried in courts of law) that restrict certain speech — yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when no fire exists, for example. But these restrictions are very rare; and, as I say, must be challenged in court to become legal precedent. The burden of proof on speech that is alleged to incite hatred is an imminent danger to the person (or group) being hated. Simply being wrong, or insulting, won’t hold up in court. Nor should it.

And that’s where that particular thought was leading. Americans believe the proper forum for objecting to something someone said or printed is in the public forum, i.e. letters to the editor or personal opinion columns. They become resentful when someone tries to circumvent this by lawsuits or “human rights tribunals” Canada-style. These actions are seen as “whining” and underhanded, and only serve to even more tarnish the view of Muslims. This is something that frustrates me, as I’ve learned not only is understanding possible, but very much “doable.” But as regards free speech, generally speaking, Americans believe the truth will out, given enough time in the public debate. (Which should be as unfettered as possible.)

Frankly, I wish many more Americans would come to websites like this one so they can learn more. Talk about the value of free speech! I’ll do my best to get the word out.