“The Future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Hey, is someone missing in that picture?
The President took a lot of heat this week for not showing up for the Paris March last Sunday. And by heat I don’t mean talk radio, I’m talking about the President’s own Praetorian Guard, the main stream media. When you lose both Jake Tapper (CNN) and Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC) you’ve goofed big time. But in retrospect, I think it was probably the right move not to show up. After a few days introspection, I think that March was dishonest and there wasn’t a clear message that the President wanted to get behind. Sure, I think it could be safely said that Obama opposes massacres of journalists, but he really doesn’t like satire against Muslims in general and Charlie Hebdo in particular.
In response to the publication of anti Islamic cartoons in 2012 by Charlie Hebdo, this was the White House response:
“We have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said, while adding “it is not in any way justification for violence.”
“We don’t question the right of something like this to be published, we just question the judgment behind the decision to publish it,” Carney said.
This is pretty much in line with the standard American left view of this, although as I’ve documented previously, the left and the First Amendment parted ways many years ago, and in Europe, it was never much more than a talking point anyway. It would be hard to explain marching in support of Charlie Hebdo after the President’s histrionics about the YouTube video that the administration claimed caused the Benghazi attack. In that case, the administration tried to pressure YouTube to take down the video.
So much for standing up for free speech. But let’s face it. Obama is no more on board with the free expression than the rest of the left.
If President Obama marched in Paris, how would he answer a French Muslim that he’s marching to support free speech to insult his religion while at the same time, it’s a crime to question the Holocaust in France, as well as many other countries in Europe? That’s why free expression is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. Once you start creating carve outs to protect some group’s feelings, when do you stop?
Answer: You don’t. You only have free speech as long as it’s convenient to the government. Of course that means that with the changing demographics of France, eventually Blasphemy against Islam will probably be criminalized.
And the French will still think they have freedom of expression.