A post by Pat
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.
—-Salman Rushdie
The American ambassador to Denmark, James Cain, offered some advice to Danes on social integration. He compared Denmark’s social problems stemming from a rapidly increasing Muslim population to the American experience with racial integration. I think his comparison is superficial. Blacks were forcibly brought to America to work as slaves and then brutally discriminated against. Repairing the damage of slavery and segregation is not at all the equivalent of accommodating voluntary immigrants who wish to replace European culture with their own.
The advice Ambassador Cain offered up is very disturbing for its implications here in America. In particular, he was asked if American newspapers would have printed the Muhammad cartoons. I don’t think any American newspaper did. The ambassador speaks as though it was a malicious lark. It was not. At the time I couldn’t decide whether the Danish, and subsequently some European newspapers, were really acting in defense of free speech or just being arrogant. Eventually I decided it was both. The reaction—riots and death threats— to the publication of the cartoons vindicated the publication as a demonstration the press will not be cowered by intimidation.
There is much to criticize in the ambassador’s responses. He advises the President to visit a mosque. He parrots the PC bromide that it is the responsibility of the majority to placate the angry ethnics among us or suffer the consequence of justifiable violence. What concerns me the most is Ambassador Cain’s premise concerning free speech. It is a rationale suitable for tyranny. He says the cartoons could have been published in America because we wouldn’t censor the press but it is unlikely for something like the Muhhamad cartoons to be published because—
In America…after a generation of fighting the war of integration [he refers to the race riots as wars in our cities— p], Americans and the American media realized we had to occasionally temper—compromise, if you would—our strong belief in freedom of speech and the free press in favor of respect and order and security in society. If that means for example, not going out of your way to insult someone or incite someone for no reason, then most media and most Americans wouldn’t do it.
(h/t Islam in Europe)
He says we learned to stay away from certain words, drawings, etc.in referring to race in order to encourage diversity and tolerance and peace and security in our society.
The publication of the Muhhamad cartoons was done for a reason, a very important reason which was the crux of the question to the Ambassador, i.e, must the press practice self-censorship when it comes to the Muslim religion. The Ambassador’s response is effectively, “yes†for the sake of tolerance, peace and security. The self-censorship practiced to combat bigotry is far different than de facto censorship to avoid violent recriminations from an intolerant mob. That is intimidation. A distinction the ambassador does not see.
In America we decided it’s more important to have a responsible press and a secure peaceful society than it is to champion the cherished right of individual free media and free speech.
The government, he says, will and should “criticize†you if you “unnecessarily†incite violence or hatred or antagonism amongst our diverse society.
The ambassador is wrong. Americans are not willing to compromise free speech to encourage intimidation falsely characterized as tolerance. Conceding Constitutional rights for the sake of diversity and “security†is totally unacceptable to the American people. Unfortunately, the American press apparently agrees with the ambassador.
Franken over Coleman — OMG I can’t imagine him being a part of our Senate; it’s almost as bad as Barky being our President. Can you imagine the mass media covering Stuart Smalley? Now I have a migraine.
When the majority free speech voice in a democracy is quelled in the stupid assumption that the restriction of freedom will best serve the needs of a minority interest and keep peace, the democracy has begun its slide into obscurity.
Democracy has been tried, and failed, over the centuries. The democracies have grown, prospered and then in benevolence or spreading wealth or whatever, have given controlling concern to soothing, and catering to the needs of, minority interests; and, then failed without exception.
The question is – have we gone so far down the path of appeasement of vocal and militant minorities that we are also doomed to fail and begining an inevitable slide into becoming a lower tier nation.
Take for example the recent insults hurled at Mr Obama by the terrorist management. A clear early step to push on weakness to see if there would be a response and set the stage for more hate. And, what did we see – a translator using the term “house negro”. Out in the streets there has never been any such term – why didn’t the translator go ahead and use the offensive “N- word” so that the public would be offended and start to understand the despicable nature of our enemies. Instead, we give them another pass for the sake of PC. And, our enemies have been further emboldened and given more comfort which will lend an incentive to push more and harder. Whether the translation was made through ignorance or intentionally for the sake of PC soothing a minority feeling is impossible to know. In either case, the translator should be fired immediately – we need to know the nature of our enemies, not pre digested nonsense fed to us for political expediency.
It is time for our representatives and senators to take a day off and carefully read our constitution, reflect and take action to move us back on track to the path that was intended by the framers of our Constitution. Our nation was founded with three primary tenets at the forefront – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our elected officials need to go do the right thing, do it fast, hard and now and get off their PC and personal interest crap.
If our coutry has been relying on Ambassador James Cain, we’d do better with a rubber crutch.
The Ambassador would do well to review our history; maybe, even as an Ambassador, study it.
In dealing with the Danish issues, he should recognize that the immigration problem there is one of masses of immigrants flooding the European social democracies and their welfare provions and gratuitously extended largesse.
The Afro-Americans had no choice but to struggle here, and for quite some time without the benefit of government assistance.
People like this ambassador justify their kowtowing to aggressive evil in terms of high moral principle. There’s a vital line between tact and censorship, but this man wants to blur that line and claim a halo for himself in the process. It’s an attitude that makes fools of the civilized people who have been at the receiving end of free speech that offends them and not killed anyone over it.
The United States Foreign Service: serving foreigners since 1789.
While there is a difference between the racial issues this country has overcome (we have overcome them, though many people choose to continue fighting for more “rights” – how you can have more when you’ve already got it all is absurd), there are some positive lessons.
First, let’s be honest. This country’s obsession with diversity is unhealthy. Diversity is good. That goes without saying. But to focus on diversity for the SAKE of diversity is unhealthy. This is like saying being slim is good. It is true that for many people being slim is healthy and better for you. But the level of slimness is dependent on various factors and focusing on being slim for the sake of being slim is often unhealthy (bulimia, anorexia, poor dieting, etc.).
Second, looking at how the US has overcome racial intolerance, many people focus on the Civil Rights Movement. It’s pretty clear this played a role, but it’s also true that factors were already in play to generate the political results that the CRM supposedly created. This is not to discount the effort people involved in the CRM put into their work, but it’s wrong to say that it was the sole factor. Most of the real work was done at a grassroots level, and continues to be done there today. That is, the teaching of children by their parents that there is no real differentiation between peoples based on skin color, ethnicity, or religious preference. I am old enough to remember the CRM, but I did not march, nor did my parents. I was taught, however, that tolerance was important. In order for nations like Denmark or France to overcome their levels of intolerance, they will need to have parents who do this. This seems unlikely for a variety of reasons, not least of these is the fact (seen here in the US, too) that fundamentalists of every stripe prefer to segregate themselves even as they call for more integration. It is hard to overcome self-limiting behavior, but even harder to convince people who are limiting themselves that they are doing so.
Finally, it’s important to remember that every nation is different. The US is, and always has been, a melting pot. Most European nations have not, they have tended to be racially and ethnically homogeneous until fairly recently. The US has a long history of strife amongst ethnic groups. The Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, Hispanics, blacks…the legacy of intolerance and overcoming it is long here. This is NOT the case in Europe, where intolerance in the US is frequently used as a stick with which to flog us in international circles. Europeans hardly ever turn that microscope on themselves, because when they do they have to admit they are often worse than the US. Can anyone say the Dreyfus Affair?
With regard to Denmark, its history of tolerance is a bit better than the rest of Europe. They are well remembered for having resisted the Nazi persecution of Jews. But they are not immune to intolerance, either. I remember visiting Denmark in 1976 and seeing Eskimos from Greenland begging on the street and being told by my uncle (a resident of Copenhagen) that these Eskimos are Danish citizens, but are not easily welcomed in Denmark proper. He was quick to follow that up with a comment that black people were considered “exotic” and therefore welcomed easily into many households. It was an odd thing for me to understand, that one group was welcome while another was not…but it does speak to a larger truth.
This truth is that we all have biases. We may choose to hide them, but we have them. These biases are not a bad thing, if we are honest about them. I may not enjoy spending time with people of a particular nation, being uncomfortable with their customs or behaviors. Admitting that, I can also be fine working or transacting business with them. I have no problem with people telling me that the Irish are all drunks and louts. Stereotypes exist for a reason – they may not always be true, but they have a basis in truth, and I prefer honesty over false attempts at whitewashing one’s behavior.
We CAN all get along, as long as we’re comfortable with ourselves and what we believe in.