Following Thoughts

Well, I must admit the on campus unveiling of the Danish cartoons was nearly a full week ago. But I've resolved to actually finish the chronicle of events and throw out some final thoughts.

Daniel Pipes and Yaron Brook opened with statements that seemed rather mild. The most inflammatory comments I noted earlier, but even those were hardly shocking. For instance, Pipes' claim that freedom of speech is an idea alien to Islamic nations: it's not so controversial when you recall that freedom of speech most importantly includes the freedom to criticize the government and the national religion. It's difficult to envision a period in history when internal criticism of Islam was an accepted practice. Moreover, Pipes made an important distinction by tracing the roots of this form of the conflict back to the edict on Salman Rushdie in 1989. In that case, given Rushdie's intellectual and literary status, the condemnation was uniform and significant, from the left and the right. Pipes made an important note: the left's condemnation (or perhaps more accurately, unanimous condemnation) is critical to having an influence when it comes to such cultural clashes. In the case of the Danish cartoons, the left, at least in America, largely backed down, while even perceived conservative newspapers refused to publish the cartoons, regardless of the condemnation of their editorial pages. We effectively conceded our right to free speech by refusing to universally publish the cartoons.

The statements, sadly, were heard only by the converted. Thanks to the overlap of the MSU event, the beginnings of the discussion were heard by a group consisting largely in diehard Objectivists, many of whom were clearly not students, and students like myself, attending out of a more general interest. Around 8:30-8:45, students began to pour in, largely Muslim (I think such a characterization is fair, given the distinctive garb of the late arrivals). That's when things started to heat up.

The question and answer period alternated between written questions and those who chose to walk up to a microphone in the middle of the room. When this point in the evening was reached, the moderator of the discussion, Prof. Edwin Locke, clearly articulated the rules for the interrogators. No speeches, one question, and a civil tone. Rather innocuous limits, I would assume. Needless to say, they were continuously challenged.

As the questions started flying, you could feel the tension thickening. The division in applause demonstrated the ideological divide of the room. Most questions were greeted by robust clapping and approving hoots from the rear, while the front of the room responded in kind as each panelist gave their response.

The questions started off in a harmless, if utterly inane fashion. Ignoring the earlier statements of the panelists, there was a round of questions that would have been tedious were it not for the vehemence with which they were delivered.

"Why are you lumping all Muslims together?" - Pipes had moments before described how, at most, ten percent of Muslims support the radical fringe of Islamofascism. Sigh.

"You are making so many general statements about Muslims and Americans and groups of people. Why can't you judge people on an individual basis instead of making sweeping statements and using these stereotypes?" - As Pipes noted, it would be very difficult if we couldn't say things like, "Americans tend to support free speech and a strong separation of church and state." This questions, sadly, was greeted by a round of applause from the rear. Some people are enslaved to political correctness.

"Muslims love Mohammed and when they see cartoons like these, they find it confusing as to what freedom means." - Well, if we lower our standards so low as to assume that Muslims suffer from such gross poverties of reason as to understand that the right to free speech includes the right to offend (though not threaten with violence) anyone...then, you may have a point.

Quickly, though, the questions had increasingly long prefaces. In short order, Pipes and Brook were compared to, well, the worst of the worst. It didn't take law for Godwin's Law to be applicable.

"I am having trouble sitting here and listening to these two men? If you want to know something about Nazi's, do you speak to an Aryan group? If you want to learn about the KKK, do you talk to a Klansmen?" Etc, etc, etc.

And so it went downhill. Locke would attempt to cut off questioners who were just giving speeches, but immediately the cry would go up from the back of the hall, "Let them speak! Freedom of speech!" Locke's explanation that freedom of speech did not apply to private gatherings, where the host had the right to boot you from the party if you wer vulgar, was summarily ignored. Subtlety fell by the wayside and was trampled under the march of goose-step of those alternately for and against free speech.

As a note, the more feverish Objectivists were little better. They were rather fond of making snide remarks as questions were being asked and trying to shout down people at the mic that rattled on.

The last question of the evening was a doozie. Like a number of those before him, the young man began with a prayer to Mohammed and then began a litany of transgressions of the United States ranging from the dropping of the atomic bomb to the United States current role as cause of "all poverty in the world," with evidence being the work of the "WTO, World Bank, WHO, IMF." Impressively, these institutions were controlled simultaneously by "Christian, Jewish, secular, atheistic leaders." Hrm. Confusing, that one.

Time constraints demanded they cut the mic while this man was still ranting. Dr. Brook had just enough time to proclaim the dropping of the bomb as an act of moral heroism, which caused chaos in the back of the room.

As the crowd dispersed, the LAPD stepped in. Within five minutes, the panelists were whisked away through an alternate exit, flanked by men in blue. I walked outside, through two rows of Muslims handing out fliers, strikingly respectful in contrast to their strident peers inside.

Final Thoughts

On the whole, it was an entertaining evening, but more than a little bit depressing. As I noted earlier, I actually did hear a student, outside the MSU event, say, "I hate free speech." I'm going to assume he was joking and I took him out of context, but I couldn't say the same for many of the people asking questions as the Objectivist event. The willingness of so many college students at a reasonably prestigious university to refuse to engage in any kind of constructive debate would be bad enough. But that I kind of expected. What I didn't anticipate was the degree of vitriol, the extreme opinions on the United States negative role in the world. A number of the characters asking questions seemed like cariacatures, straw men I thought David Horowitz created when at his hyperbolic. To discover that they exist, at my university, and in such numbers, male and female, was shocking.

By contrast, even though I'm a practicing Catholic, Brook's insistent claims that all religion boiled down to an abdication of reason and the exaltation of irrational faith were almost a relief. I couldn't disagree with him more, but at least it was familiar. Atheists, I understand (or at least, I think I do). Fundamentalists, I've known. Ignorance, I've experienced. But this degree of utterly irrational loathing, conspiracy mongering, and downright looniness...that belonged to a world of wacky websites, to places overseas. I've traveled through Europe and North Africa [ed: a week in Tunisia, to be precise...not exactly "traveling through North Africa.] and never heard some of the things I heard that night.

Adding insult to injury, skating off into the night, I could only reflect on the poor precedent set by our European breathren. Not so much in terms of the Danish cartoons, but in similar cases. The imprisonment of David Irving for one, the draconian laws limiting free speech in England for another.

Well, so it goes, as an author I hate might say. That's all I got on the Danish cartoons for the moment. Happier and briefer thoughts en route...