For the past decade or so, it has been drilled into us – and by ‘us’, I mean ‘citizens of Western democracies’ – that drawing any image, no matter how innocent, of the Islamic prophet Muhammed is a taboo.
Verboten.
Not to be done. under any circumstances.
Doing so would constitute ‘a provocation’ – and any response, however unreasonable or disproportionate, by Muslims anywhere on Earth is therefore the fault of the ‘provocateur’.
Case closed.
But, is it?
Is it, really?!?!?
What ever happened to denouncing ‘the hecler’s veto’? I thought that in a civilized society, each person is responsible for his or her actions – and ‘provocation’ is not an excuse to violence….especially non-violent ‘provocation’.
Yet, for the past ten-or-so-years, we have been conditioned (primarily by the cowardly mainstream media, but also by the way policing has systematically been carried out) to blame the person who is exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms for ‘causing a disturbance’ or ‘disturbing public peace’ when people react violently to them.
This is as upside down as it can get: yet, we have become so conditioned to this situation that we no longer question it.
At this point, drawing any picture – caricature or flattering – of the Islamic prophet Muhammed is seen to be ‘beyond the pale’ and anyone who dares to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech with regards to him is seen as the villain in any violent reaction to this lawful action.
Sad, but true. Very true.
The media spin is predictable: ‘they have a right to…, but…’
Meaning: ‘Yeah, they did something lawful that provoked other people to break the law, so it’s their own fault they got killed….’
So, the billion-dollar-question is: what constitutes such a provocation?!?!?
Holding a ‘Draw Muhammed Day event’ is one – as I learned on the 19th of May, 2015.
Holding an ‘equal opportunity blasphemy day’ is another, as I learned on the 19th of June, 2015.
So, what about yoga? Nobody can consider a bunch of people ‘stretching’ to be a provocation, right?
Well, not so fast…
June 21st, 2015, was UN’s ‘international Yoga Day’!
People all over the world got together in unbelievably unflattering outfits to stretch and grunt and look silly – while feeling like they ‘mattered’. Simple fodder for humour, right?
Not so fast!!!
This ‘government imposed’ yoga day was a clear provocation against Muslims worldwide!
Bowing to the sun!!!
Heathens!
Polytheists!!!
Undermining the one-ness of Allah!!!
Plus it is a clear imposition of the Hindu agenda on Muslims worldwide!!!
D-ugh!!!!
At least, that is what the Muslims are saying.
Which leaves me wondering: for the past bunch of years, people have happily exercised yoga on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
How long before the Islamists among us refuse to accept such a provocation and take violent means to stop such a blasphemous thing happening at the seat of Canada’s government?!?!?
How long before Islamist dress codes become mandatory on the Parliament Hill so as not to pose a ‘provocation’ to the Islamists in our midst?
It is not as far fetched as I hope it would be….
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
July 1, 2015 at 14:49
Xanthippa:
The question is not “what constitutes a provocation?” but “how should the law apportion guilt between the provoker and the provokee?”
It can get complicated, because there are degrees of provocation, and there are degrees of reaction. If someone reacts mildly after intense provocation, it’s one thing; if someone reacts violently after mild provocation, it’s quite another.
In the former case, the bulk of the guilt lies on the provoker, but in the latter case, the provokee bears most of the burden of guilt. One can easily think of scenarios that run the gamut in between.
To make this specific regarding Muslims and cartoons, the short answer is yes, drawing a cartoon that insults them is a provocation.
But it is a rather mild provocation by any objective criteria, and the violence of their response is completely out of proportion. So the it’s patently obvious that the violent Muslims bear the vast majority of the guilt in these situations.
What really complicates the issue is the cowardly attitude towards violence that is being crammed down the people’s throats, everywhere in the West.
If it were not so legally problematic for people to defend themselves from such violence, the problem would quickly go away.
July 2, 2015 at 13:53
Quite, CodeSlinger!
While you are quite aware, from our previous conversations on this blog, that I do not agree with assigning guilt to the one doing the provoking and only to the provokee who breaks the law and why, I fully agree with the rest of your assessment.
If I were able to protect myself – legally speaking, that is – against aggression directed at me by those who relish becoming violent at even the slightest provocation (or what they perceive as one), the problem would soon be over. But, I am NOT permitted to defend myself.
Thus, I am left vulnerable to both aphysical attack and a legal one.
July 4, 2015 at 18:13
Xanthippa:
We are near the bitter end of a long slide down a slippery slope that began when we outlawed duelling.
It began by deprecating the (characteristically masculine) concept of honour.
Once the idea of honour was devalued, it became possible to claim that an insult to a man’s honour is somehow less serious than a physical insult to his person. The next step was to argue from this (deeply flawed!) premise that it is a wrongful over-reaction for a man to respond with violence when his (or his wife’s) honour is insulted.
This ushered in a very troubling trend in the West, of de-legitimizing violence of all kinds, even in situations that call for violence. At the same time, we are broadening the definition of violence to include almost anything unpleasant. Spanking, dodge ball, and even unflattering words are now considered forms of violence.
We have reached a point where the claim is being made that there is no such thing as a situation that calls for violence. As a result, public schools are indoctrinating our young to consider it wrong for anyone, ever, to resort to violence under any circumstances – even when physically attacked.
This has two very serious consequences.
First, the things we do to avoid violence run the gamut from the dishonourable, cowardly, and neurotic to the outright deranged.
Second, if a man is not prepared to die in defence of his own honour, he is not prepared to die in defence of anything at all.
Such a man is not a man at all.
And that is exactly what the agenda calls for.
For, if our men were still men, the two-faced, pencil-necked jellyfish who run this place would never get away with the abuses they are shoving down our throats.
July 4, 2015 at 19:10
CodeSlinger,
I do understand what you mean – and agree with a lot of it.
But since you have mentioned the slippery slope thing…
…is it that much more different for a man to react violently when somebody insults the honour of his wife from when that insult is directed and his prophet?
July 4, 2015 at 21:24
Xanthippa:
Well, no, it isn’t really that different at all.
What is different is that Islamists don’t challenge kuffar to duels, or any other form of fair fight.
They attack without warning, from the shadows, in overwhelming numbers, or rely on some other unfair and cowardly tactic. And they do so without compunction, arguing that such methods are only dishonourable if directed at Muslims.
And we… bend over and take it.
If they knew they had to face someone ready, able, and willing to fight back – in a fair fight – the vast majority of them would decide they weren’t really that outraged after all.
July 4, 2015 at 21:35
CodeSlinger,
so, let’s take a thought journey.
Let’s say that Muslims would find my depiction of the prophet Muhammed an insult to the honour of their prophet. And let’s say they chose to act ‘honourably’ – within the guidelines you have sketched out.
Would it be an appropriate reaction for a Muslim to challenge me to a duel for having insulted his/her prophet?
And if were to survive that first duel, would it be OK for the next Muslim to challenge me so?
And the next one? And next, next, next?
Are you seriously suggesting this would be an acceptable course of action?
And while I would be perfectly happy to accept any such duel challenge and lay my life down for my right to blaspheme whomever I please, I am seriously doubtful that a society that would accept this type of behaviour would end up with freedom of speech.
July 6, 2015 at 13:41
Xanthippa:
“Freedom of speech” means immunity from government compulsion in regard to our speech. It does not mean immunity from other people’s reactions to our speech.
Freedom of speech does not excuse ill manners or lack of tact, it just means that it cannot be a crime to be rude or tactless.
People have always known that injudicious exercise of their freedom of speech was likely to earn them a punch in the nose, or worse.
But this did not prevent them from speaking freely when the need arose.
What does prevent them from speaking freely is the knowledge that there exist speech codes that are enforced with the full weight of the surveillance state.
Now, as for your endless-stream-of-Muslims scenario, that sort of thing is explicitly against the rules.
You can rightly be called to account only once for each of your actions.
Besides, the point is independent of the details of duelling etiquette.
The point is that Muslims get their way by intimidation because our men are easily intimidated.
And it will continue to get worse until we reverse our decadent slide into female-centric culture that raises men to be cowards.
July 6, 2015 at 16:25
CodeSlinger,
It seems unlikely that your ‘rules’ would function…not under the way you’ve set it up.
If it is OK for a person to challenge me to a duel if I offend their prophet, who is to decide which of them is the representative? Come on, that would certainly not fly. If a person has that right, then each person has that right.
July 6, 2015 at 20:51
Xanthippa:
I repeat: the point is independent of the details of duelling etiquette.
The point is that we can either return to a culture that celebrates honour, courage and skill in battle…
or we can get used to the jizya, musalla, and burqa.
Islam leaves us no other choice.
July 6, 2015 at 21:45
CodeSlinger,
Islam is THE honour based culture – more so than any other.
What you are advocating is the adoption of Islamic ‘honour’ norm into our society – not escaping from it.
July 7, 2015 at 12:54
Xanthippa:
It’s quite possible for an honourable man to have an otherwise contemptible world view.
Even so, particularly in light of the spectacle of Islamic honour killings, it’s easy to see how one might find the phrase “Islamic honour” problematic. But it isn’t the word “honour” that introduces the problem.
Indeed, what we see in such killings is a caricature of honour, a posture assumed to obfuscate what boils down to a summary execution. The practice is an extreme example of the conspicuously-pious posturing of holier-than-thou people everywhere, of every religion (including the secular ones).
What is most significant about these killings is that they unequivocally assert a single-minded drive for cultural purity. The fact that they occur tells us that this culture will kill its own young, if necessary, to prevent admixture with any other culture.
So the most important question we must ask ourselves on seeing this is, what sacrifices are we prepared to make to avoid being overrun by such a culture?
Ominously, it appears that the answer is… none. None at all.
Instead, we call the very question “racist” and “hateful.” But this is just a woefully transparent ploy to hide the real reason:
We have made our men into malakoi.
They have no honour, no courage, and no skill in battle.
July 7, 2015 at 15:37
Sure, CodeSlinger.
I do not think many would argue with you there.
But you did not address my main point: a right that may be exercised by on is one that must be available to exercise by all. If you were to reintroduce duels as a honour/insult solution.
If one man who is offended has a right to challenge the offender to a duel, then every man who is offended has the right to challenge to a duel. There is no ‘collective’ offence with one respondent answering….the rights are individual.
This would contradict the ‘rule’ you stated that only one duel would be permitted.
This position is irreconcilable with individual liberties, no matter how romantic such a notion might be.
July 7, 2015 at 19:12
Xanthippa:
Essentially, you’re asking what would prevent Islamists from escalating the situation into a war.
The answer is simple: the certainty that they would have to face men, and not malakoi.
That is what would prevent such escalation.
And that is in distinct contrast to the situation we’re in today: currently, nothing prevents them from escalating.
This is the whole reason why they are escalating.
But the thrust if your last few comments indicates that you’re missing my point.
What is lacking in modern Western society is not so much the formal institution of duelling as the world view that holds fighting to be an indispensable and laudable skill that a man must master.
The abolition of duelling was just the first step in a long and shameful descent into denial of that world view.
A man who can’t fight is pitiable, and a man who won’t fight deserves contempt.
And that is exactly how Islamists view Western men: with pity and contempt.
They will continue to escalate their intimidation tactics unless and until our men grow a pair.
July 7, 2015 at 21:38
Ah!
OK, CodeSlinger, that I will agree with.
Actually, I would go even further and argue that the emasculation the males in our society are subjected to through the hyperfeminized education system, combined with no true male roles available to them in our society, is the driving force behind so many of our young (men and women) idolizing ISIS and their ilk and making them susceptible to ‘radicalization’.
July 8, 2015 at 15:24
Xanthippa:
Yes, exactly.
As I have argued before, cultural Marxism heightens the Islamic threat dramatically.
The worse the political correctness gets, the more stifling the collectivist secular Edenism becomes, the stronger is the desire to escape into some other religion that allows men to be men and women to be women.
But Christianity has been so denigrated by cultural Marxism that Western progressives seeking escape will choose any religion but Christianity.
In the past, this lead them to Buddhism, Hinduism, Witchcraft, Satanism, and a wide range of fringe cults. But increasingly, they are turning to Islam, because they sense strength and vitality in it that are lacking from all the other religions, especially the secular ones.
By converting to Islam, men and women can escape the treadmill of mutual destruction on which the cultural Marxists have trapped them. As their immediate situation becomes increasingly intolerable, the pressure to do that mounts, until they lose sight of the fact that they will only be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Notice, however, that they escape progressivism by embracing a religion, not a philosophy.
This says everything that needs to be said about whether it is possible to rid society of religion.
July 8, 2015 at 15:37
CodeSlinger,
we only see the ones escaping to religion because the ones escaping to philosophy and science are not a problem.
It does not mean they are not the majority.
And even if they were escaping to religion in greater numbers than to science and philosophy – inducing them to embark on an erroneous path is still not right.
July 8, 2015 at 15:51
Xanthippa:
So, you would rather see them convert to Islam?
July 8, 2015 at 15:57
No, CodeSlinger.
What I mean is that two wrongs don’t make a right.
It is not either-or. There are other options – ones people don’t really know about.
One good example of this non-religious alternative is to bring into focus the heroics of the people who brought us the reformation and the renaissance and to encourage people to emulate their example.
Strong ancestor-respect is another way to go. Grounding in one’s history. No need for religion at this point, especially if the heroic fight to rid society of religious oppression is stressed.
There is more meaning in striving for freedom than there could ever be in striving for a religion.
We just have to defy our politically correct overloards and bring these archetypes into public consciousness.
July 10, 2015 at 13:20
Xanthippa:
I think your ideas are good ones in certain contexts, but they don’t address the bulk of the population.
The reason people follow a religion is because it meets their emotional needs.
Contrary to your claim, very few are willing to go to the effort required to derive this from philosophy or science; most reach instead for some kind of theosophy or scientism. They simply replace God with some mish-mash of ancient aliens, modern government, and the “quantum law of attraction.”
Progressives are progressives precisely because their minds work this way.
Like the woman who told me that she dislikes science because understanding ruins her experience of the beauty of rainbows.
Or the woman who told me that she determines which of two alternatives is true by holding them in her mind and deciding which one she feels better about.
People like these are the ones you must recruit if you wish to defeat cultural Marxism, but they are not susceptible to recruitment by the methods you suggest.
People like these are the majority (by a large margin), and will remain the majority for the foreseeable future. Mankind is still centuries away from a time when a purely secular society can exist without degenerating into secular Edenism, and thence into totalitarianism.
If we refuse to acknowledge this fact, the only thing we accomplish is to drive escaping progressives into the arms of Islam – or the equally atavistic Christian fundamentalism that is growing up to fill the void left by the cultural Marxist defeat of civilized Christianity.
Meanwhile, Christians are drawn into the duplicitous interfaith movement because they know they need allies against cultural Marxism. They think, at least Muslims believe in God, so they must be better allies than those godless libertarians. One day (too late) they will find out how wrong they are.
So the West must defeat both cultural Marxism and Islam to survive – and do so without igniting Christian fundamentalist backlash.
There is only one way to move in that direction, and that is to show Christians and secular classical Liberals that they can co-exist peacefully with each other, but not with cultural Marxists or Muslims.
July 10, 2015 at 15:55
If this is true, CodeSlinger, then I want off this planet!
Actually, in a few hours, I will be leaving the big city behind to go visit with my hubby’s family up North. Like, 12 hours worth of a drive up North.
And, it is a different world up there…
Nice people, but they have such a different way of living…and thinking…
Don’t get me wrong, they are wonderful people, but my generation is completely Cultural Marxist and Christian at the same time. After a few drinks (no driving, so it’s OK to ‘let loose’), our discussions heat up.
Also, I will not have access to the internet, except for when we go into town, which is not every day. We do this ‘for the children’ – a couple of days off line brings some perspective and helps the younger generation bond over such an injustice!