Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
AP reports that at a recent summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 predominately Muslim nations, the discussion focused on how to eliminate criticism of Islam around the world:
Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.
An attempt that will fail, but the fact that they want to attempt it is all I need to know. No, you will not do away with our right to criticize your religion, whether you attempt to do so by suing or by blowing things up. You do not have a right not to be offended by the views of others. Period. End of discussion.
The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up.
And there's the problem with making these exceptions like many of our European allies do. When you try to ban things that are offensive to group A, you encourage group B to demand the same protections from offense. And group C and D too.
Comments
Hmmmmm. People are calling our religion backwards, oppressive, and totalitarian. What should we do? Oh, I know! How 'bout we punish them and censor them for it! Then they'll realize this is a religion of peace.
Posted by: Wes | March 17, 2008 9:40 AM
So....then they can be prosecuted for disrespect of Judaism, Christianity, etc.? And women's rights? And anything else?
Posted by: Pineyman | March 17, 2008 10:01 AM
Hmmm. Instead of fixing Islam so it's not actually violent and controlling, we just threaten those who call us out on our faults? Totally laughable. I guess it shows that these people have absolutely no understanding of freedom or Western values.
Posted by: writerdd | March 17, 2008 10:01 AM
I started reading the post and I thought "wow, great they're going to address some of the criticisms leveled at Islam. What an open-minded aproach." Unfortunately that thought didn't quite complete before I finished the second sentence wherein they're just going to sue people who criticize Islam. How very much more appropriate in our world to fight rather than discuss.
Posted by: lauram | March 17, 2008 10:28 AM
How to stop people criticizing Islam:
Step 1: Stop getting so worked up when people crticize Islam.
Posted by: Chris Hyland | March 17, 2008 10:49 AM
Might there also be 'Legal Instruments' to prevent criticism of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Wicca, inspirational ranting, chanting, dancing, wine-drinking, divinations, tea-leaf and palm reading, and fill in the blank?
Posted by: Rod | March 17, 2008 10:53 AM
It will be interesting to see how far they can take this. It could open a whole can of worms in the right hands.
Posted by: Richard Eis | March 17, 2008 12:08 PM
They might want to expand the use of beheadings and bombings. That's been effective at getting some in Europe to shut up. If they show a clear connection between speech and consequence, say a video of a man criticizing the use of beheading in Islamic countries, followed by a video of that same man, kidnapped, and screaming as he is being beheaded, that'll shut some people up.
Posted by: soboco | March 17, 2008 12:21 PM
When you try to ban things that are offensive to group A, you encourage group B to demand the same protections from offense. And group C and D too.
Why do so many people not understand this? I've seen polls where high school students effectively are willing to allow the suspension or limitation of their 1st amendment rights to stop free speech that they don't like. It never seems to occur to them that someone else could decide that the student's speech is something they don't like. They don't see the possible progression from "acceptable censorship" to the end of civil rights speech, to the end of anti-war speech, to the end of churches and temples.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 17, 2008 12:26 PM
"It never seems to occur to them that someone else could decide that the student's speech is something they don't like."
We all know it's because they are in power at that moment in time, and what to use that power over others. When they are not in power anymore, they will cry discrimination.
Posted by: RAM | March 17, 2008 12:44 PM
does freedom of speech mean you can make any utterance you want ? What about saying under oath something you know to be false ? It is free speech or it is just perjury ?
Posted by: T_U_T | March 17, 2008 1:50 PM
I'm sorry, but if you are referring to the Madrid and London bombings, you are wildly off the mark, and your comment is an insult to the memory of those people who lost their lives in the bombings. Those bombs did not cause the Spanish or British people to suddenly start wanting to placate Islamic sensibilities--their strong desire to remove themselves from an unpopular and unnecessary war is a different matter entirely.
It is also an insult and crude caricature of the many millions of Muslims who would not for one moment want such actions to be taken in defense of their faith. Many such people are working hard at great risk to their lives to fight Islamic extremism in places like Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia.
This type of comment feeds the worst kind of right wing propaganda that all Muslims are terrorists and that they will soon be sweeping across a compliant Europe too docile to respond. Neither is anywhere close to the truth.
Posted by: tacitus | March 17, 2008 2:14 PM
"seen polls where high school students effectively are willing to allow the suspension or limitation of their 1st amendment rights to stop free speech that they don't like"
High school students indeed, but we could hope that adults might be a bit more mature in their thinking; unfortunately....
Posted by: Elizabeth | March 17, 2008 3:41 PM
tacitus said:
"This type of comment feeds the worst kind of right wing propaganda that all Muslims are terrorists and that they will soon be sweeping across a compliant Europe too docile to respond. Neither is anywhere close to the truth."
Unfortunately, is it not the actions of the "Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 predominately Muslim nations" itself which feeds the worst type of right wing propaganda?
And while there are "many millions" of peaceful freedom-espousing Muslims, there are many millions who do not fit that description. How many of these delightful folks exist worldwide is a statistic I have not seen. ( Has anyone?) But, the statistics from individual areas and countries which I have seen are not encouraging.
What I am saying is that there appears to be a lot more Muslims toward the "extremist" end of the spectrum than one might expect. More, I would venture, than the scenario which tacitus paints would suggest.
The statements of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are not helping matters. There are already plenty of examples of people of Islamic faith who demand accommodation, as well as those who brook no interference even when their actions are brutal and appalling by any Western standard. The OIC is its own worst "caricature", as tacitus so ironically put it.
It is not just right wingers who are getting upset and worried, it is people of all political stripes. And why wouldn't they? Many Islamic nations, populations, and individuals are just plain scary.
BTW, Islamic people are, in fact, spreading throughout Europe and their numbers are increasing, are they not? That many Muslims are instantly recognizable is not helping European impressions, no doubt.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 17, 2008 7:37 PM
tacitus - You take yourself too seriously. I said "some" in Europe have taken the cue and been shut up. And I never said all Muslims advocate beheading or otherwise killing people who say things they don't like. But one look at the Danish cartoon protestors show that there are most certainly Muslims that do. There are photos posted by reputable sources showing protestors with signs making threats. Are you try to tell me that there aren't government officials in Europe that aren't intimidated by these people? I think Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said the common reciting of the statement "an insult in the world's 1.3 billion Muslims" not only implies that there is strength in numbers, but also that there is danger in numbers. So, I didn't say all of them use threats of violence, but plenty of them certainly do.
Posted by: soboco | March 17, 2008 8:37 PM
Oh, and by the way I don't care if, as you said, "It is also an insult and crude caricature of the many millions of Muslims who would not for one moment want such actions to be taken in defense of their faith." This thread is about Muslims wanting to silence critics.
Posted by: soboco | March 17, 2008 8:44 PM
And if the tenets of my religion require me to criticize Islam?
Posted by: itchy | March 17, 2008 10:22 PM
Connie Willis had a great short story about this, where everyone was allowed to censor the parts of Hamlet that they didn't like. I believe the resulting play read, in its entirety, "Tis bitter cold."
Posted by: Monado, FCD | March 17, 2008 11:39 PM
Quoth writerdd:
Robert Spencer keeps saying much the same thing; he hangs out with unsavory folk at Wingnut Daily, but maybe if folks of different persuasions give him a better forum he'd be willing to jump ship.Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 18, 2008 12:08 AM
Well, Tacitus is right about one thing: the Madrid bombings did not make spaniards suddenly afraid of Islam. Criticizing Islam has been politically incorrect around here for years. Obviously, people do it, but only when they think everyone within ear-shot is going to agree with them.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | March 18, 2008 7:28 AM
"Robert Spencer keeps saying much the same thing; he hangs out with unsavory folk at Wingnut Daily, but maybe if folks of different persuasions give him a better forum he'd be willing to jump ship."
Or maybe otherwise sensible people should stop taking seriously anything in World New Daily.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 18, 2008 9:01 AM
"Criticizing Islam has been politically incorrect around here for years. Obviously, people do it, but only when they think everyone within ear-shot is going to agree with them."
Yeah it's terrible. Similarly I haven;t been called a "Jew Bastard" or a"stinking yid" in public for years. Ah for the good old days when you could spit on blacks in the street with impunity.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 18, 2008 9:03 AM
Some do regardless, and it is incumbent upon all rational people to look at the facts and not subject the truth to ideological or religious filters.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 18, 2008 10:48 AM
Ed (quoting the AP piece):
The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.
Two points:
1) The idea that a national government can "allow" a newspaper to publish something a bit controversial says a lot more about the offended parties and their perceptions of freedom of the press than it does Denmark;
2) That being said, what does "redress" mean to them? If it's censorship they're calling for, absolutely not. If it's monetary damages they're asking for, that's so laughable it's not even worth arguing the hypotheticals.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | March 18, 2008 8:59 PM
T_U_T:
does freedom of speech mean you can make any utterance you want ? What about saying under oath something you know to be false ? It is free speech or it is just perjury ?
There's a fairly sharp difference between protected speech and speech taken under oath in a civil or criminal trial or in a deposition. For one thing, the only real penalty stating that "X did this to Y" in a paper, blog or a public conversation should get you is a libel or slander suit thrown your way by someone you irritated.
For another, voluntarily stating that "X did this to Y" does not amount to perjury unless it's a part of sworn testimony in a deposition, testimony to a legislative body such as the House of Representatives (1) or civil or criminal trial and the offending party is knowingly lying to the questioner. If the party in question is repeating something under threat or duress, is convinced of a false opinion that he or she thinks is true but isn't or is just plain mentally incapable of entering such testimony, then it probably doesn't rise to the level of willful perjury.
(1) Let's not have a moment of silence for baseball asshat Roger Clemens and his "performance" in front of Henry Waxman's subcommittee. He doesn't deserve it, IMHO.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | March 18, 2008 9:27 PM
There's a difference between hate speech and criticism, making fun of, and overt mocking.
I never felt threatened by Monty Python's mocking of gay folks: pooftas this, and femme stereotypes that, all in good fun, with a bit of old-fashioned cross-dressing thrown in for good measure. But when some religious rightie extremist calls for violence against us, or whips up a crowd into a frenzy knowing that a mentality of violence will result, that's a different story.
Same case for Islam. An irreverent cartoon is not hate speech. Racial epithets and threats of violence against Muslims are. The difference appears to be lost on their fundie extremists, just as it's lost on our own homegrown version.
And as for those puritanical arseholes who want to clamp down on irreverent and blasphemous speech that isn't hate speech, in my humble opinion they can all go fornicate with goats.
Posted by: g347 | March 20, 2008 9:20 AM