As Diana West writes, “For rejecting both the threat of violence and the emotional blackmail emanating from Islam over critiquing Islam’s prophet”, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the two South Park creators, “deserve a medal.” But don’t expect them to get much help from the rest of the legacy media — no matter which side of the aisle their fellow broadcasters are on:
“They’re courageous — no doubt that they are,” said Bill O’Reilly of Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor” this week. He was discussing the Islamic death threats against Parker and Stone that, naturally, followed the recent “South Park” Muhammad episode.
The threats came in a jihadist video (caption: “Help Us Remove the Filth”) portraying the writer-producers as likely victims of Islamic violence along with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks. A photo of the slain body of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, his head nearly cut off on an Amsterdam, Netherlands, street in 2004 by a jihadist assassin, served as an example.
AdvertisementRather than praise Parker’s and Stone’s courage, however, O’Reilly went on to disparage their judgment.
“Was it the smart thing to do in light of the Danish cartoonist and van Gogh?” he asked. “It’s harmless to me,” he continued about the episode in question. “But if you are a hard-core jihadist, any mention of Muhammad in any kind of way, particularly if you’re poking fun at him, is a capital offense.”
According to whose law, Bill — Islam’s or ours? Or is our law now Islamic? Those are the question citizens of the Western world need to hear discussed.
But not on “The O’Reilly Factor.”
“See, I would have advised them not to do it,” O’Reilly continued, “because the risk is higher than the reward.”
One reason there is such a high “risk” is because media people such as O’Reilly left Westergaard and now the “South Park” creators, as Parker put it, “out to dry.” All media in America should have reproduced Westergaard’s cartoon, just as all media in American should now applaud Parker and Stone for their defense of free speech against Sharia.
Surely it is O’Reilly’s responsibility as a leading broadcaster to do that small bit to keep the airwaves free.
Alas, this man of the folks doesn’t see it that way. “You don’t want to give in to the intimidating forces of evil,” he said. “But you got to deal with reality. And these people are killers and they will kill you.”
In other words, shut up about Muhammad, and everything will be fine — or at least Islamic.
Back in 2007, Ace of Spades asked a great question: have the same people who would catch a serious case of the vapors if you asked them about God and politics essentially created a de facto state-sanctioned religion in America in their tacit defense of Islamofascism?
Islime is at “war with free speech” to criticize Islime.
If Islime was so great, Islime would not be bothered by criticism…
How come Islime insults Jews every day, in books, TV, Print, cartoons but riots if they feel someone does not respect “Islime”; as described…No one from Islime protest the daily insult of Jews… Islime is hypocrites ad nausea…
We understand Islime:
1) Honor killing: killing your sister is legal; just pretend she left the house unescorted by her male (chauvinist) family member.
2) Women can not drive a car, unescorted by her male (chauvinist) family member.
3) Women can not have an education; except barefoot and pregnant; The Islime male ego, still in the cave man era, could not stand a woman who is smarter and earns more money than her male (chauvinist) family member.
4) Islime is so insecure that it can not stand: free speech to criticize Islime; must to murder…
5) Islime can not stand up to terrorist that kill in the name of Islime; so Islime is assumed terrorist by all: “think for yourself people”!
While I generally enjoy Bill’s analysis and shows, I also generally agree with the author of this short piece. Bill should have come out strongly in favor of the episode and the creators. Not just noting the courage it takes to stand up to just the potential of death threats but in celebrating this expression of free speech.
I do have one quibble with the author, however:
“But if you are a hard-core jihadist, any mention of Muhammad in any kind of way, particularly if you’re poking fun at him, is a capital offense.”
Did the author miss the beginning of that quote? “But if you are a hard-core jihadist…” Bill was noting the islamist point of view, not ours.
The beginning of that quote is also revealing: “Was it the smart thing to do in light of the Danish cartoonist and van Gogh?” Short answer to that rhetorical: No, it wasn’t ‘smart’ but it was (and is) the RIGHT (as in correct) thing to do…according to OUR laws, mores, and traditions.
The author does have a significant point with respect to how the ‘legacy media’ treated the situation, including Bill on this one. We need to criticize islam for all of its faults just as we criticize other institutions/faiths for their failings – the Catholic Church for prime example regarding the sex scandals that just don’t seem to have an end (full disclosure: I am Catholic and believe the Church deserves to take several huge lumps over this).
If we, as Americans and others who value the Freedom of Speech, point out the flaws inherent in every institution, demand they reform, and keep doing it no matter what then there will be real change. Whether that change takes the form of true reform or collapse due to the weight of the criticisms is of no moment.