The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Most of the press on this issue (including some of the commentary here on AtlasBlogged) has focused on the blasphemous nature of the cartoons, and the reaction of Muslims around the world. But it needs to be considered also from the point of view of the cartoonists and the editors who printed them. Due to the very freedoms that Western Europe stands for, it has become a destination for millions of migrants from throughout northern Africa and western Asia. Europeans have found their freedoms and their sense of safety threatened by some of those immigrants, to a more visceral degree than Americans might realize. Tensions between Danes (or Swedes or Britons or French or etc) and Muslim immigrants are greater than any racial tensions the average American knows, and the history and nature of the relationship is completely different from that to which the average American is accustomed.

It is easy for Americans to say that the cartoons should not have been published, or that they served no useful purpose. It is easy for us because we do not have a real sense that our cities and society are becoming more dangerous and violent in the way the Danes do. Most Americans probably did not know that Muslims would consider cartoons of Muhammed profane, but Europeans do know. To Americans, terrorism is overseas. Islamic extremism is overseas. The conflict is overseas. It is not enough to say that we do not understand Islam - we do not even most of us understand the Danes. The cultural relativism must end. Is it objectively acceptable to publish words or images that are inflammatory? Does the reason for doing so matter? If the reason matters, we are criminalizing thought, not actions. If it is acceptable to publish an editorial or cartoon that is inflammatory, then in a free society it cannot matter the reason for doing so - offense for the sake of offense must be as legally protected as offense for the sake of political dissidence.

"Well, sure..." an American might say. "But why incite violence? We can report on and discuss the furor over the cartoons without publishing the cartoons themselves". Yes, we can. But is there some reason to do so, other than the fact that these cartoons are causing a violent furor? If the only reason not to publish is fear of violent reprisals, then the failure to publish is appeasement (at best).

The truth that is known but which we fear to speak or print is the most dangerous truth of all, and the thought crime that is being perpetrated is indefensible.

Islamic extremists in Western Europe try to hold all others hostage with the threat of violence - moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike; Jews, Christians, secularists, everybody. The publication of the cartoons in question did not represent inflammation for the sake of inflammation, nor even inflammation for the sake of information or entertainment (which is what we experience so frequently in the American media). It represented inflammation of extremist interlopers for the sake of drawing a line and saying, We believe in this. Battle lines have been drawn carefully, with Freedom of the Press on one side, and Religious Sensitivities on the other. This battle could not have been picked with the Catholics, or Lutherans, or Buddhists, or Wiccans. Neither are their adherents prepared to be incited by cartoons, nor is the European public prepared to be incited by cartoons about them. This whole affair has been a carefully placed spark in long-filling powder keg.

Jyllands-Posten's publication of the cartoons is repeatedly called offensive. It should instead be seen as defensive. It would be appropriate to debate whether such defensiveness was warranted, but it must first be recognized as a defensive posture. Do so.

Paul Belien at the Brussels Journal notes,

... to depict the Danes as warmongerers and the fanatical Muslim immigrants who are attempting to impose Islamic law in Europe as victims, is something which so far I have only heard from these extremist Muslims themselves, from Bill Clinton, and from the loony left.

The Brussels Journal has also highlighted Dyab Abu Jahjah, the Brussels-based leader of the Arab-European League, who in a sort of retaliation has started publishing cartoons offensive to some on his website. While I do not agree with all of his statements, I'll defend to the death his right to say them. And there is one statement of Abu Jahjaj that I find instructive:

In our cartoon campaign we do not endorse any anti-Semitic, homophobic or sexist stands. All we are trying to do is to confront Europe with its own hypocrisy using sarcasm and cartoons. We will therefore continue our sarcastic campaign in the days to come and we will not be intimidated by the ridiculous law suite that was filed against us in the Netherlands.

This is exactly how it should be.