(no subject)

Really interesting article in Salon today by a Danish journalist about the cartoon situation.  As a Dane and a European, he feels that the Danish and later the European press were deliberately being quite provocative, and he makes what seems like a solid case to back it up.  Of course he's not saying the rioting Muslims are rational in their response, but he is saying the way the situation is being perceived as a matter of freedom of speech is a distraction from the real issues--especially considering Denmark doesn't even have freedom of the speech or freedom of the press as guaranteed rights.  This bit was also interesting:

This all would have been very well if the paper had a long tradition of standing up for fearless artistic expression. But it so happens that three years ago, Jyllands-Posten refused to publish cartoons portraying Jesus, on the grounds that they would offend readers. According to a report in the Guardian, which was provided with a letter from the cartoonist, Christoffer Zieler, the editor explained back then, "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." When confronted with the old rejection letter, the editor, Jens Kaiser, said, "It is ridiculous to bring this forward now. It has nothing to do with the Mohammed cartoons." But why does it not? Can you offend Muslim readers but not Christian readers? "In the Muhammed drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons," Kaiser said. "That's the difference."

And therein lies the truth. The paper wanted to instigate trouble, just not the kind of trouble it got. And in this mission it acted in concert with the Danish government. "We have gone to war against the multicultural ideology that says that everything is equally valid," boasted the minister of cultural affairs, Brian Mikkelsen, in a speech at his party's annual meeting the week before Rose's cartoon editorial last fall. Mikkelsen is a 39-year-old political science graduate known for his hankering for the "culture war." He continued, "The Culture War has now been raging for some years. And I think we can conclude that the first round has been won." The next front, he said, is the war against the acceptance of Muslims norms and ways of thought. The Danish cultural heritage is a source of strength in an age of globalization and immigration. Cultural restoration, he argued, is the best antidote.

Doesn't really sound all that different from the other side, does it.  It seems to me that although the attacks on Westerners throughout the Middle East as a result of these cartoons is absolutely reprehensible, it is also wrong to go deliberately stirring up trouble when you know that "the other side" is hypersensitive and pretty unbalanced.  I am not saying that Muslim radicalism ought to be pandered to and mollycoddled, but deliberately further antagonizing them is about the most counterproductive action I can think of.