Effective Tactics

In February 2006, as Muslims rioted, burned, bombed, and closed newspapers in response to some offensive cartoons, a contrast become evident. So evident that even Mrs. Michelle Malkin, who has helped fuel the fires (more on that in a moment), has noted it.1 Ms. Jennifer Siegel writes more on this contrast, expanding on the unjust nature of a comparison of Catholic protests of offensive speech and Muslim protests.2 In short, we have been peaceful, while they have not only threatened death and destruction, but have carried out those threats. If you cannot see a difference there, a hugely significant one, then I submit that you really are not capable of rational discussion.

We do ourselves no favors however, either in a push to advance free speech nor in a push for conversion, when we fan the flames of Muslim militancy as Mrs. Malkin has done. Mr. Alejandro Bermudez explains why.3 Any attack on religion, any religion, as a religion is a threat to all of us. The same papers in which these cartoons originated are equally well known for attacking Catholics. Further, to republish these cartoons is not going to help convince Muslims to be less violent, nor is it going to help convert them to the true faith. This is not an example of equalization nor of apologetics. It is simply attacking a religion for no reason other than the fact that that faith is an easy target right now.

While we clearly cannot give in to threats of violence, we also should not be eager to spread these cartoons. We should find other ways to encourage free speech in the face of this attack on it. For the suppression of these cartoons is equally unproductive, done in the manner currently attempted. Far from a peaceful protest aimed at demonstrating the poor logic of publishing them, these attacks are aimed at silencing all criticism and all dissent. This was not an effective tactic during the age of the Inquisition, nor is it effective now. A boycott or a peaceful protest works by reminding publishers where their money comes from. It does not make economic sense to offend your customer base. It makes them remember you and your concerns without fearing you or hating you. A death threat or a bomb threat can also work, in the sense that you can stop publishers from publishing, but you do so by making them fear and hate you. You convince them of the truth of the material you suppress even as you suppress it. This means that, in the long run, more of that material will be produced. It will just be distributed differently.