Amid UN struggles to negotiations a new Human Rights Council (abviously needed with representatives like Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nepal and Russia) the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference) calls for the insertion of language requiring the new council to "prevent instances of intolerance, discrimination, incitement of hatred and violence" arising from "any actions against religions, Prophets and beliefs."

But democracies, epsecially the US looks at freedom of speech in a more absolute way, and enforcing responsible speech is in effect censoring speech.


The OIC proposal includes a couple introductory paragraphs with no lawful force, but one operative paragraph that would be binding. Not that the UN has any enforcement teeth, but it would be something useful to beat freedom of speech over the head.

Hundreds of newspapers and media outlets in this country are choosing not to run any of the dozen Danish newspaper cartoons. I have no problems with that. They have to freedom to not print as well as the freedom to print.

The New York Times ran a story in their arts section "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery." Basically it's about what is behind the Danish cartoons and the reaction to them. They compare them with other examples of cartoons and art in US that was also intended to provoke.

They mention Max Ernst's painting of Mary spanking the infant Jesus, the Virgin Mary with cutouts from pornographic magazines and shellacked clumps of elephant dung and Rumsfeld in the guise of a doctor, saying to a heavily bandaged soldier who has lost his arms and legs, "I'm listing your condition as battle hardened."

It would be nice if there never were any sects, religons or social groups provoked in this fashion, but that isn't reality the free world. I grant that the Times has the freedom to print or not print what it chooses. Yet I find it somewhat disingenuous for them to write this story about imagery provocations, and peoples sensibilities, while excluding any of the danish cartoons, but include a picture of the pornographic Virgin Mary.

Like the Danish cartoons, it too is meant to provoke and does achieve that goal. Maybe the Times chioce was because unlike the danish cartoons no museums were been burned, nor was anyones death or limbs called for. At any rate they show that they are not swayed by sensibilities, so is it because they bow to Islamic threats, or that they tollerate Islam but not Christianity?