Syndicated Columnists Address Danish Cartoon Controversy

By: Dave Astor As the Danish cartoon controversy continues to flare, more syndicated columnists have been commenting on the matter. Here are excerpts from seven pieces, two of which (Daryl Cagle's and Ted Rall's) were written by columnists who are also editorial cartoonists.

Daryl Cagle, Cagle Cartoons syndicate: "Politically correct commentators in the West devote equal time to condemning Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper as they do for the crowds that are burning embassies and inciting even more violence. Almost every newspaper in America has refused to reprint the cartoons, leaving readers to believe that if they saw the cartoons, they would be offended too. In fact, if American readers saw the cartoons we would say, 'This? This is what makes them so angry? That's crazy!'"

Ann Coulter, Universal Press Syndicate: "In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder, and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence."

Michelle Malkin, Creators Syndicate: "Something very important is happening in Denmark -- a showdown over freedom, tolerance, and their wolfish menaces in religious clothing. So, please, turn off 'American Idol,' put down the Game Boy for a moment, and pay attention. This does affect you. ... Despite how relatively tame the pictures actually are -- compared not only to Western standards, but also to the vicious, anti-Semitic propaganda regularly churned out by Arab cartoonists -- the drawings have literally inflamed the radical Muslim world and its apologists."

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune and Tribune Media Services: "(E)ditorial cartoonists ... are not doing their job very well if they don't provoke somebody into outrage on a regular basis. But offense should have a point to make. While there always is something in the paper that will offend somebody, we should try to avoid unnecessarily offending anybody. That's my problem with the Muhammad cartoons. They seem to be intended primarily to do nothing more than provoke Muslims, including the vast majority of law-abiding Muslims who never did the cartoonists any harm. ... I might find these gags amusing if they were directed at Osama bin Laden or some other fanatic who has hijacked Islam for violently radical purposes. But, by targeting the Prophet himself, the cartoons insult the religion as surely as similarly demeaning cartoons of Jesus would insult Christians. Nevertheless, there's a right way and a wrong way to respond to insults in a free society."

Kathleen Parker, Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel and Tribune Media Services: "Newspapers especially deserve contempt for their spineless refusal to deal honestly with this controversy. Instead of publishing the cartoons and explaining why free expression is central to the West's survival, editors with few exceptions have swaddled themselves in the blankie of 'sensitivity.' Kudos and curtsies to Philadelphia Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett, who published one of the cartoons along with a story about the controversy. For her trouble, she has been visited by Muslim protesters who promise to return if the paper doesn't apologize... . Incensed Iranians are preparing to lob a few cartoon bombs of their own with a Holocaust cartoon competition. Fine. All comers are welcome to the free-speech fray. Far better that we wage the war of ideas with words and images than with bombs and bullets."

Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate: "Being provoked, as I tell myself when I'm sitting next to Sean Hannity, doesn't justify reacting with violence. And as Kuwaiti oil executive Samia al-Duaij pointed out to Time, there are better reasons to torch embassies than over cartoons: 'America kills thousands of Muslims, and you lose your head and withdraw ambassadors over a bunch of cartoons printed in a second-rate paper in a Nordic country with a population of five million? That's the true outrage.' ... Free speech is like a Ferrari: What good is it if you don't use it or if you barely use it, only driving it in town, in stop-and-go traffic? It's useless until you can head out to the Arizona desert and push it past 150 mph. Short of libel, slander, and impersonation, anything goes -- that is, if you believe in the First Amendment."

Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post and Washington Post Writers Group: "(T)he Muslims who are offended that any image of their prophet would be published, let alone THESE images, could have expressed their displeasure with a barrage of letters to the editor or angry e-mails rather than take to the streets. I wonder, though, what the reaction would have been, say, 30 years ago. My guess is that it would have been more letter-writing than rock-throwing. People don't normally burn down embassies over a few cartoons in a newspaper they've never even heard of, much less ever read. The widespread hair-trigger outrage, I think, grows out of a sense that the world of Islam has been used and abused for many years by a powerful and evil entity called 'the West' -- and that this mistreatment is getting worse, not better."