Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Summer Rerun: Freedom and Fear

    Posted by Sgt. Mom on June 23rd, 2017 (All posts by )

    (Working on a fresh new history trivia post, delayed in completing by … whatever. Real life, completing the next book. This reprise post is from 2011.)

    I started following what I called “The Affair of the Danish Mo-Toons” way back at the very beginning of that particular imbroglio, followed by the ruckus last year over “Everybody Draw Mohammad” and now we seem to have moved on to the Charlie Hebdo fiasco – a French satirical magazine dared to poke fun at the founder of Islam … by putting a cartoon version on the cover of their latest issue, with the result that their offices were firebombed. I think at this point it would have been fair to assume that representatives of the Religion of Peace would respond in a not-quite-so peaceful manner, so all props for the Charlie Hebdo management for even going ahead with it – for even thinking of standing up for freedom of thought, freedom of a press, even freedom to take the piss out of a target.  (The following is what I wrote last year – still relevant to this latest case)

    What do you call it when you – theoretically speaking – have a certain designated freedom bestowed upon you, such as freedom of speech or thought  . . .  but you are afraid to exercise it, for whatever reason? What then, oh wolves; are you then truly free if you are constrained from exercising that right because  . . . ? If honest discussion of certain topics is essentially forbidden because it is infra dig, or rude, or may cause hurt feelings to another, or offend a segment of society, then can we still claim that we have freedom of speech, or any sort of intellectual openness, even if convictions for sedition or blasphemy are relatively rare in the West? That speech is still unspoken, those thoughts un-aired are still un-aired, whether it is fear, social pressure or the rule of law what keeps them so.

     Which brings me back to the matter of the Danish Mohammad cartoons – even after four years, the matter is still resonating: at the time I wrote this:

     (It) depresses me even more, every time I think on it. For me it is a toss-up which of these qualities is more essential, more central to western society: intellectual openness to discussion and freewheeling criticism of any particular orthodoxy, the separation of civil and religious authority, and the presence of a robust and independent press. The cravenness of most of our legacy media in not publishing or broadcasting the Dread Cartoons o’ Doom still takes my breath away.

     They have preened themselves for years on how brave they are, courageous in smiting the dread McCarthy Beast, ending the Horrid Vietnam Quagmire and bringing down the Loathsome Nixon – but a dozen relatively tame cartoons? Oh, dear – we must be sensitive to the delicate religious sensibilities of Moslems. Never mind about all that bold and fearless smiting with the pen, and upholding the right of the people to know, we mustn’t hurt the feelings of people  . . .  The alacrity with which basic principals were given up by the legacy press in the face of quite real threats does not inspire me with confidence that other institutions will be any more stalwart.

     The latest iteration in this farrago of freedom of the press is the fatwah on American cartoonist Molly Norris, who originally created “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day.” The fatwah originated in Yemen, a place which I am sure a great many members of the American public would have difficulty pin-pointing it’s exact location on a map of the world. But the tentacles of the murderously offended reach a long way. She is now in hiding, and in various discussion threads, a dismayingly large number of commenters are blaming her for provoking Moslem ire.

     But that is my point – what good is it to have brave principles about open, intellectual discussion, freedom of the press, of thought and expression, if in the end they are not exercised out of fear? A freedom not exercised out of fear … is not a freedom at all; like muscles, they have to be used, lest they atropy.

    Here’s the thing – the other half of the intellectual freedom thing; there is no right of the individual never to be offended. In a free and open discussion, there will be differing opinions and interpretations, and there may even be people offended by the exercise of it. God knows, the artistic set have been cheerfully offending the bourgeoisie for decades, on the principle that it is good for us to be shaken up now and again, just to make us all consider or reconsider our preconceptions, or expand our consciousnesses or whatever twaddle they will use to justify themselves with. And the good bourgeoisie, even if offended, usually wasn’t motivated to do much more than grumble and write a letter to the editor; they didn’t go around chopping off heads. One might therefore have grounds for suspecting that in the case of the Danish Cartoons o’ Doom, and ‘Everybody Draw Mohammad’ that a good part of this sudden unwillingness to offend is plain old fear.

    Compounding the irony is the fact that those who are the most fearful of repercussions are also afraid to openly admit their fear in the first place – that some Islamic radical nutbag would come after them with a knife, or a car-bomb, or even just get their asses fired for ‘Islamophobia.’ So much easier to transfer the blame, and never have to admit that intellectual freedom has been stifled – not by law, but by fear.

     

    11 Responses to “Summer Rerun: Freedom and Fear”

    1. David Foster Says:

      They are Dancing for the Boa Constrictor…

      When in Spain during the Spanish Civil War (he was supposed to rescue French people who were in danger), Antoine de St-Exupery visited one village where they had shot seventeen “fascists.” The parish priest, the priest’s housekeeper, the sexton, and fourteen village notables, including the pharmacist.

      “The conscience of the village is tormented by one man whom I have seen at the tavern, smiling, helpful, so anxious to go on living! He comes to the pub in order to show us that, despite his few acres of vineyard, he too is part of the human race, suffers with rheumatism like it, mops his face like it with a blue handkerchief. He comes, and he plays billiards. Can one shoot a man who plays billiards? Besides, he plays badly with his great trembling hands. He is upset; he still does not know whether he is a fascist or not. He puts me in mind of those poor monkeys who dance before the boa-constrictor in the hope of softening it.”

    2. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Exactly – dancing for the boa-constrictor, and hoping that it will gulp them down last.

    3. David Foster Says:

      Part of it is fear of the boa constrictor; part of it is a strong need to gain the approval of their work associates and social circle. The social consequences of rejection on political grounds can be pretty serious for people working in certain industries (academia, entertainment) and the social consequences can also be bad especially for people with kids.

      I think there is also considerable fear of what they perceive as a closer and more threatening class of serpents: southerners, rural people, and Christians…to the point that the boa constrictor seems more distant, less-threatening, or at least more placable than do these closer-at-hand ‘enemies.’

    4. Al Teichmiller Says:

      “Here’s the thing – the other half of the intellectual freedom thing; there is no right of the individual never to be offended.”
      Is this true anymore? Our society/culture seems to be going to extreme lengths to assure that certain people not be offended. Illegal to use the wrong pronoun in Canada? Don’t dare to tell someone to use a bathroom assigned to a sex to which he/she does not identify. Don’t keep score in kid’s game because someone might get their feelings hurt. etc. etc.

    5. dearieme Says:

      Excellent St-Exupery story! Mind you, it was a wonder the Republicans didn’t also rape the priest’s housekeeper: maybe he suppressed that detail as likely to distract from his point.

    6. Margaret Ball Says:

      I disagree that they are going to extreme lengths to ensure that certain people won’t be offended. Rather, I think they’re going to extreme lengths to ensure that no one will be able to tell when and whether given speech will be taken as offensive, and to legitimize the social media lynch mob against any person whom they accuse of offensive speech – even if whatever they said was part of the leftist catechism two weeks earlier.

      They really don’t care about the “victims” du jour; they are merely tools in the project of making us all walk on eggshells, worry about giving offense, worry about being publicly held up to scorn and obloquy, and – eventually – STFU. In the Religion of Leftism, this is all of the law and the prophets.

    7. David Foster Says:

      People and groups who are perceived as Dangerous…whether physically dangerous, as in beating people up and breaking windows…or financially dangerous, as in filing lawsuits which will be expensive to defend against even when meritless…or just PR-dangerous, as in making the institution look bad through the lens of the media…will get specially high levels of concern about anything they say offends them. It has little to do with genuine caring about ‘victims’ du jour, it has much to do with career protection for the decision-makers involved.

      What it creates, of course, is an incentive for people/groups who are now harmless to become Dangerous, on any or all of the vectors described above.

    8. Sgt. Mom Says:

      I think it is getting worse since I wrote this. Another indicator of unstated social understandings being torn down and danced upon.
      Used to be ‘don’t agree, but defend your right to say it’ – now, it’s basically, ‘lose your job and die screaming in a fire, you heretic!
      Used to be ‘live and let live’ – now it’s no quarter.

    9. Anonymous Says:

      http://www.dailywire.com/news/17807/british-police-just-imprisoned-man-posting-mean-joshua-yasmeh#

      http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/16/canada-passes-law-criminalizing-use-of-wrong-gender-pronouns/

      https://heatst.com/culture-wars/tires-slashed-and-free-speech-rally-organizer-left-bloodied-at-evergreen-college-by-antifa/?mod=sm_tw_post

      http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/19/city-east-lansing-bans-apple-farmer-market-faithful-catholic/

      Res Ipsa Loquitur, as the late Doctor Gonzo might say. Albion and her offspring are dying by PC suicide. Either we fight back through massive civil disobedience — backed by the deterrent effect of widespread firearms ownership — or we live long enough to see our civilization perish.

      In other news, I was banned from Instapundit the other day for goading The Perfessor over his support for queer marriage. It was either that or my telling Mike Walsh to F straight off for suggesting that the disruption of the gore-porn adaptation of a Shakespeare play was an unconscionable attack and oh, we dare not stoop to such stuff. Both comments were removed, along with a slew of others on totally unrelated issues, suggesting somebody was in a fit of pique. People keep doubling down on their narrative and pruning heretics who disagree. The bubbles keep shrinking and getting more hermetically sealed. And even people you think are on your side are proving appallingly unreliable.

    10. Phil Ossiferz Stone Says:

      Truth in advertising: the comment above is my own.

    11. Mike K Says:

      Insty is gone on vacation. Maybe his cobloggers lost it.