Media/Political Cowardice

John O'Sullivan has a good piece in the Chicago Sun-Times discussing the cowardice of the media in the face of Islamic radicals, and the greater cowardice of the politicians. First the media:

First, by not showing readers (including Muslim readers) what all the fuss was about, it has fostered a highly exaggerated idea of just how offensive the cartoons were. Of those published in the Danish newspaper, the most offensive was that showing Muhammad's turban turning into a bomb. That was a harsh but fair comment on the policy of indiscriminate murder that radical Islamists claim to be justified by the religious concept of jihad.

Such a cartoon is leagues less offensive than those showing the prophet with a pig's snout or having sex with dogs. Millions of the rioters wrongly believe those grotesquely offensive images to be the cartoons the Danish paper published. If the mainstream media such as CNN had published the actual cartoons, those mistaken beliefs fueling the riots would at least have been diminished.

Second, because the mainstream media failed to publish the cartoons, they were very slow to discover that the most offensive and genuinely blasphemous cartoons had in fact been distributed -- and almost certainly created in the first place -- by the very Danish imams who were traveling around the Middle East seeking to stir up hatred against Danes and Christians.

O'Sullivan saves the worst of his ire for politicians, including a former president:

But these journalistic sins of omission pale into triviality in comparison with the truly active cowardice of the politicians. Since most of the cowards on this occasion were Europeans, it should be admitted at once that the first to step forward and abase himself was former President Clinton. At an economic conference in Doha he described the cartoons as "appalling" and "totally outrageous" and compared them to the anti-Semitic prejudice harbored by Europeans until recently.

To judge from these remarks, Clinton had not actually seen the cartoons. If so, he was being utterly irresponsible in condemning them sight unseen. If had seen them, he was spreading the false and exaggerated rumors about them that had caused actual people to be murdered. In either case, he was pandering to his largely Arab audience.

Since Clinton spoke, however, a procession of European nabobs has stepped forward to condemn the cartoons and, worse, to suggest that expressions of free speech that some consider blasphemy will not be permitted in future. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong." France's President Chirac said: "Freedom of expression must be exercised in a spirit of responsibility. I condemn all manifest provocation that might dangerously fan passions." At least one European Union high official, Spain's Javier Solana, has expressed some sympathy for the Organization of the Islamic Conference's demand that international conventions on free speech should not permit blasphemy.

These remarks might be dismissed as well-intentioned platitudes if there were not already significant restrictions on free speech in Europe: all the usual ones -- libel, incitement, etc. -- and new ones to protect ethnic groups against hate speech crimes. If new offenses are to be added, that could be genuinely cramping.

Given Al Gore's recent remarks in Saudi Arabia, surrender to and appeasement of the radical Islamic elements seems to be the operational plan for Democrats.