Egyptian PM: No Apology; Riots Were "Regrettable;" Demands That The Blasphemers Be Brought To Justice

Diplomacy.

And is Egypt’s government sorry about the attack on our embassy? No. Kandil says the attack was “regrettable” — but not because rioting over a film is barbaric. Rather, it is “regrettable” because “the people who produced this low film have no relation to the (U.S.) government.” So rioting against the filmmakers is fine, and if there were any nexus to the government, rioting at our embassy would be fine, too.

… Which brings us to the second part of Kandil’s statement: “We ask the American government to take a firm position toward this film’s producers within the framework of international charters that criminalize acts that stir strife on the basis of race, color or religion.” Translation: We’re not holding the American government responsible … yet — but if it fails to punish the filmmakers, then all that “regrettable” stuff might not be so regrettable.

As Allah noted yesterday, this idea of an international law forbidding blasphemy against Mohammad is dear to the Islamists' hearts.

If speech is illegitimate because it offends religious sensibilities, then we’re on the doorstep of yelling “blasphemy.” In practical effect, that’s what the embassy is pushing: There’s not a syllable wasted here on condemning the cretins who climbed the embassy walls and tore down the flag — on 9/11. The denunciation is reserved for the blasphemers, who in this case turn out to be Egyptian expats who made an amateur film about Mohammed that’s presumably being used by Islamist demagogues over there to whip up the crowd. Every now and then, the Organization of the Islamic Conference pushes a blasphemy resolution at the UN designed to carve out international exceptions to free speech laws for insults to religion, i.e. Islam. The statement from the embassy is precisely the mentality they’re trying to cultivate. All that’s missing is a call for criminal penalties, but that’s less important to the anti-blasphemy bloc than western officials groveling to their sensibilities. Mission accomplished.

So: Is it the position of the left, the Democrats, the State Department, and President This F***in' Guy, that an anti-blasphemy law would be good and advisable? Which religions would be protected under its auspices -- would the Christian religion, so long a favorite target of artists and academics, be on the list?

What would the artists think about that? Would the academy agree to no longer "blaspheme" against the Christian religion?

Are we all okay with that?

Or would we restrict prosecutions to only insults to Islam?

I'm not exaggerating here. The left doesn't want to call it "blasphemy" laws, because they know, as "civil libertarians" they're against such things, but what they keep proposing, again and again, is precisely that. They should be required to answer to the word that correctly describes their position, and defend it.

posted by Ace at 04:49 PM

| Access Comments