Jack Straw, the apologist
When freedom of expression meets cultural mores
The Islamic interpretation of the commandment not to worship graven images means that they take a very strict line on what is acceptable. Unlike most religious temples, any depictions of anything living (plant, animal, human or divine) are forbidden, in case they are mistaken for idols of worship. But the prohibition goes beyond that. Any depiction of either Allah or Mohammed is considered unacceptable irrespective of the circumstances, and a muslim is taught to find offence in such things. Which is just what happened when a Danish newspaper commissioned and published a series of satirical cartoons a few months back.
I don't have a problem with that. The right to choose to be offended is merely a facet of the right to free expression. But it is a choice, and even were one to argue that point, how one responds to the offence most definitely is a matter of choice.
What does give me problems is the attempt by this ever increasing mob to impose their own mores on the rest of the world, especially when many of those same people feel perfectly at liberty to cause as much offence as they choose particularly in their derision of Jews and Christians, and their contempt for the non-muslim world. Over the course of several months what began as a political issue of free speech in Denmark has escalated to international demonstrations, and physical attacks on one Danish embassy at the hands of agitants in the muslim world are deliberately spreading falsehoods and offering up counterfeit images, stirring up unrest for their own purposes. What troubles me further still are the calls from the demonstrators in my own country to respond to offence with mortal violence. But worst of all, the real thorn, is that Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, has criticised as irresponsible and inflammtory our own supposedly free media for republishing some of the cartoons in their coverage of the story. That disgusts me. Should I choose, I have every right - in a democratic society - to see what lies at the heart of this international uproar, and it is the purpose of the news media to inform. I am dismayed that a figurehead of the government representing me is claiming that in order not to offend people who have a very restricted sense of freedom my own freedom to remain informed should be curtailed. That just isn't on. If anyone is being irresponsible it is politicians who would, like Straw, bend to threats of violence. Incitement to hatred (racial, religious, whatever), to violence - and in particular, to murder - is quite clearly unacceptable. The right to satirise, to explore and question, however is most definitely a cornerstone of freedom. The two cannot be equated. And yet here he is, a government minister pouring scorn on the press whilst placating the hoodlums who march the streets with their placards shout for blood to be spillt. Something's truly arse about face.
