What have we come to when Ministers and Prime Ministers kowtow to extremism.
With breath taking hypocrisy Muslims, including one Javed Khan, invoke threats or the threat of threats to prevent newspapers from publishing the Mohammedan cartoons, first aired in September 2005.
The hypocrisy is this - New Zealand is a free society - freedom of expression is paramount and a foundation stone. Khan's mentioning of threats to NZ is the anti-thesis of that freedom. His and his ilk's calls for censorship are as repugnant as the cartoons themselves.
What is wrong is not that news media in NZ chose to reproduce the vulgar cartoons, but that the muslim brotherhood has ignored the absolute right of the media to make its own choice as to the appropriateness of the material it reproduces.
The Labour Government's response is not beyond reproach. It is sad, but Oh So Predictable...
They have quickly slid in behind the muslim view. What would have been more appropriate would be a call for tolerance, a reinforcement of freedom of expression in New Zealand, noting its secularity and probably most importantly commentary that the very legislation the Left are wanting to introduce throughout the Western World (ie democracies) - the 'hate crime' legislation making it a crime to utter (or think) an alternative view to or about minorities - would be (paradoxically) available against those making barbarous statements...
For example:
Last week, Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to Hell!"
I paraphrase the Daily Telegraph
...Is this not an abuse of the freedom of protest and freedom of assembly that are foundation stones of British democracy. Yet, even as they exploited these hard-won liberties, they were calling for them to be abolished...
yep, I think so.
Or what about this...again from the Daily Telegraph
The protesters in London with their disgraceful slogans - "Behead those who Insult Islam", "Britain you will pay - 7/7 is on its way" - have made it all but impossible for a genuinely free debate on this issue to take place. All such debate is now being carried out in the shadow of murderous intimidation.This has been a disgraceful week for most in Government in the West. Most have become craven apologists with little wit or leadership.
Posts
1 comment:
Surely the questions surrounding the printing of "the cartoons" should focus on the root of the problem - the media. If it were not for the media, the cartoons would not have been published, neigh, they could not have been published. So I therefore put to you, is it not the fault of the media, rather than the cartoonist himself?
I am sure that there are a number of us around who have said, written or in fact drawn something which we later regret, but as it was said or done in a relatively closed environment, then it has not gone on to offend anyone. Had the media taken the cartoons and gone "Hmmm ... that is going to offend the Muslims" and taken the sensible ground, then there would not be a problem. But instead, the media has taken the cartoons and gone "Hmmm ... we can incite a riot".
And while we are on the topic of blaming the media, might I suggest that "terrorism" is also the fault of the media. If the media did not publish and promote terrorism, it would either be greatly diminished or would not exist. There would not be a sane person around who could not see the logic in what has been proposed. Now, I say "sane" as there will definitely be those who do not agree, however it could be said with an extremely high degree of certainty that those people will either be fundamentalists themselves, or involved in the media.
So, I've had my little rave, and hopefully it might incite some thinking. There will always be the reactionary rubbish where people just shoot comments down in flames, but fundamentally, there is sense in what has been said. You just have to open your eyes to see it.
Post a Comment