The Danish cartoon crisis

We're still short of any definitive opinion on the row, not helped by the fact that the debate has descended into chronic whataboutery. But there are a few issues that will be ripe for analysis when things settle down. One in particular is why British newspapers have chosen not to publish the cartoons. Now anyone looking for negatives will cite some combination of the July bombings, behind-the-scenes government pressure, or political sensitivity gone mad as explaining it.

But it's puzzling given that an attachment to the principle of free speech and a highly competitive daily sale market might have created a bias towards reprinting them. So it begins to seem something like pragmatism -- why seek out a headache? -- and, God forbid, maturity, and maybe even a level of Muslim integration that is higher than in continental Europe. Note for instance that Britain's Muslim influx began virtually with the partition of All India, while the continent's dates to the 1960s; that's an extra 15-20 years for a comfort level to be reached.

Anyway, amidst all the shouting, there's an extra need to get the facts right. Thus the necessary visit to Andrew Sullivan, who incorrectly says that France Soir fired its editor (it was the publisher; we corrected our own milder version of this mistake a couple of days ago), and yesterday claimed that:

European countries would be in a stronger position to defend press freedom if they practised it more often. There's a bill in the British parliament right now to make offending people's religion a legal offense.

Sort of. The bill was heavily toned down precisely because of free speech fears, with the UK Parliament doing what the US Congress (not to mention the Dail) never does -- some actual standing up to the executive. In particular, under the amended law, the "offending" speech must be threatening -- insulting or offending are fine.

Sullivan offers one solution to whataboutery:

Once you start censoring people, you have to deal with the problem of double-standards. If you defend free speech in every case, you're on firmer ground.

Which is intellectual consistency at the price of a cop-out. Why not talk about motive, as Sullywatch does?

But as [Steve] Gilliard noted, to have done so [create and publish] in such a provocative way and then simply assert your freedom of speech as a defense is grossly insensitive. This was clearly done to bait the European Muslim community. If you take the right, take the responsibility.

[We also acknowledge the inbound link from Richard at Sicilian Notes to our previous post, though our browser now hangs every time we try to go back there; could God be angry?]

UPDATE: A sentence that can be read more than one way, in Saturday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd; alt. free link):

Danish flags, whose design is based on a Christian cross, are being burned. So much for religious respect.

To state the perhaps not obvious, isn't it possible that the cross-in-the-flag issue is seen as exemplifying the clash of civilizations that rabble-rousers want this to be?