Todays topic is : How to offend people

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/toles.jpg http://media.michellemalkin.com/wapoletter.pdf

For some odd reason I have posted this about three times in the past couple of days. The system would not accept the picture and the text just kept on disappearing. Was this censorship I wonder, or simply a technical coincidence?

I don't really want to link to Michelle Malkin but here is the 'totally offensive' cartoon that appeared in the Washington Post that was described as 'beyond tasteless' and reprehensible by the Joint Chiefs in their letter. I am referencing this because there is a lot of talk around about freedom of speech and offence at the moment and much of it is absurd. The British press are dithering over printing the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, some of the European press are printing them as some kind of act of free speech solidarity and lots of people are getting hot under the collar.

The Prophet cartoons issue is simply down to the refusal of the secular liberal establishment to acknowledge other peoples' opinions. In fact, in their free speech protests it looks to me like they are deliberately and wilfully failing to understand Islam.I would not go so far as saying they are racist, but are set on a default setting where attacking religion is not only okay, but sometimes a badge of honour.

I am a strong believer in the fact that attacking religion is okay. In some ways that is what it is there for. For believers of all religions, the questioning of faith (and the tenets of faith) is a comonplace, often essential act. However, I sense in the responses of, for example, comedians to Religious Hatred legislation, the arts community to the Sikh response to the play 'Bezhti' and the press in general to the offense people took to 'Jerry Springer : The Opera', a smugness which is disingenous at best and pretty arrogant at worst. 'I am prepared to offend you but I am in turn offended by the fact that you are offended' is a dunderheaded non-argument. At the very least, if you are going to offend others - especially if that's what you set out to do - then you should be prepared to accept their response. It's not good enough to simply refuse to cry foul when someone comes back at you, or to try and control the limits of other peoples' offendedness. In the case of Bezhti, violent protests closed the play and lots of artsy types wrote a strongly worded joint letter to the Guardian. None of those people, whose conviction and defence of free speech was so strong and all-consuming, travelled to Birmingham to counterprotest and keep the play open at all costs. When a press conference for Jerry Springer was hijacked by protestors, it was ended early and the protagonists were later found bleating in the press. Did they not face the protestors down and battle on? Of course not.

People (I am really talking about the Press and politicians here, because they operate from the position of having a powerful voice) invoke the freedom of speech argument too often as a defence against causing offence. The fact is that freedom of speech is not the absolute the press often claim it is when they are acting in their own defence. The easy answer is most often to heap ridicule on those who are offended. For example, I know several moderate, broad-minded Christians who were pretty offended by some of the content of Jerry Springer : The Opera. None of them were 'Right Wing Fundamentalists' ( one of them said to me "The God I know might be a bit pissed off at it, but I doubt he'll lose much sleep, so neither will I"). Yet in defending the show, critics and columnists did not approach them, or examine their position. They were simply folded into the many dismissals of The Right Wing Nutters, and portrayed as absurd and foolish. The same is happening with the cartoons. We don't see pictures of moderate Muslims debating their profound discomfort and concern, we see clips of protesting Palestinians waving AK47s or Pakistani students burning effigies. This is not a considered defense of free speech. This is lazy stereotyping by religion.

You'll probably never hear me say this again, but Jack Straw's response is on the nose with this one. He recognises that it is an issue of respect and sensitivity above all.

Free speech is crucial, but the fact that it theoretically means you have the absolute right to say anything about anyone, doesn't mean that you are impelled to. In many cases free speech is a duty. Speak out against real injustice, argue your sincere point of view. But too many people use free speech to name call, to lord it over others and to make themselves feel better.