Mr. Bhuyian, from all your talk about “dialogues” and “bridges,” one could almost forget that you’re defending violent anti-speech hate riots.
Who told you that Jyllens-Posten wanted a dialogue with Muslims? Accepting free speech is a prerequisite for participating in Western political discourse.
Tolerating the speech of others without violence, even when offended, is the price of admission to the global conversation, a price that these riots and the follow-up boycotts (and the absurdity of defending them) demonstrates Muslims as a group are not yet willing to pay.
Your factual claim regarding Jyllens-Posten’s editorial policy is a lie. Jesus was depicted standing with Mohammed in a police line-up in the same cartoon. But that’s beside the point. People in a free society have the right to choose who they wish to offend. Your complaint makes no sense unless you yourself don’t believe in free speech.
Fundamentally, you think the cartoons are the problem and that the violent anti-speech hate rioters have a point. Indeed, you consider those cartoons and defending those rioters more important than genocide and slavery in the Sudan, than honor-killings, than suicide bombings—the Argus doesn’t have enough space for the complete list. I can think of only one mindset that would permit such distorted values. Bigots do not get to cry “racist!” Mr. Bhuyian, and if you were genuinely opposed to “ethnocentrism” you wouldn’t spend your time complaining about cartoons.
The world does not revolve around the sensibilities of Muslims. The “you offended Islam” excuse has been stale since Mohammed violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, but apologists like yourself still rush to explain the role of “Muslim humiliation” after each atrocity. Get over it! The problem is not the cartoons, it is the behavior illustrated by them, of which both the riots and your conduct are examples.
Leave a Reply