Michael Moynihan had posted on Tuesday the video of the attack on Swedish artist Lars Vilks during his presentation at Uppsala University:
Allhapundit posted on Wednesday that Swedish artist Lars Vilks had been disinvited, following the incident:
Cartoonist Lars Vilks attacked for showing Prophet Mohammed in gay film
Lars Vilks, the Swedish cartoon artist allegedly targeted by ‘Jihad Jane’ for portraying the Prophet Mohammed as a dog, was attacked Tuesday when he showed an Iranian film that depicts the Prophet in a gay bar. Are radical Muslims succeeding in muzzling free speech?
The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Allahpundit:
If you think this couldn’t happen at an American university, bad news: It already has. In fact, I’ve seen examples of it with my own two eyes. The punchline? As usual, appeasement only encourages further aggression by lowering the threshold for what constitutes actionable offense. Read this Paul Ibrahim piece at Pajamas contrasting western groveling to jihadis with the insults routinely thrown at Mohammed by an Arabic evangelical TV network. Ibrahim draws the lesson that if you act like a dhimmi, you’ll be treated like one. I think it’s more complicated than that — Arab atrocities against Arabs have always been vastly more tolerated in the Middle East than, say, western atrocities against Arabs — but good luck explaining how and why bowing to every threat of violence is making western media safer.
Oh — Vilks’s website was hacked this morning, too. Just another way to shut him up. Exit quotation from the man himself: “What you get [when you appease] is a mob deciding what can be discussed at the university… I’m ready to go up again. This must be carried through. You cannot allow it to be stopped.”
Today Allahpundit, American Power, and Ace (who has a brilliant headline: Plans Announced To Erect Islamic Culture Center On Lars Vilks’ Decapitated Body) have the video of the aftermath of the attack on Vilks:
One courageous woman confronted the mob by stating “this is not freedom of expression”.
Gates of Vienna examines the implications of some of the words shouted by Muslims in this video. Here is #2 (GoV lists 4):
2. If he had stopped the film, this couldn’t have happened.
In other words, if Mr. Vilks had moderated his actions to take into account the sentiments of Sweden’s Muslim community, nobody would have tried to kill him. From the enrichers’ standpoint, this makes perfect moral sense: the artist is required to alter his behavior to accord with norms that have nothing to do with Swedish tradition. Freedom of artistic expression is an atavistic cultural artifact that is not included in this particular postmodern schema.
According to the norms of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc., the artist has the responsibility not to offend his audience with blasphemous “pornography”. If he neglects his responsibility, then his just punishment may include injury or death at the hands of those whom he has offended.
Immigrants in Sweden have learned that this is their right: their religion is to be respected at all times and by everyone. When an irresistible multicultural force meets an immovable free-speech object, guess which one has to yield? The culture-enrichers have long since learned that free speech is what almost always gives way. Lars Vilks was unable to finish his seminar, and the University of Uppsala is reluctant to reschedule it, due to “security issues”. Mr. Vilks is unlikely to find another venue unless he pays for it out of pocket, so the enrichers are right: their religion — and more importantly, their eagerness to resort to violence whenever they are insulted — trumps long-cherished Swedish freedoms.
Vilks continues to be a marked man. Notice how CNN demurred from showing his work, and they allow a woman to issue direct death threats without even showing her face:
The Poet Versus the Prophet
On standing up to totalitarian Islam
Since 2001, many Americans have asked how they can contribute in a direct way to the war against totalitarian Islam. Now we have an answer. If it’s legal, and likely to offend the radicals, just do it. That seems straightforward enough. But how many of us will have the nerve to stand up to a million or so Muslim dirtbags, and to scores of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of their fellow travelers and psychic enablers, and say in unison, “You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me.”
Visit Vlad Tepes’s YouTube channel for more Counterjihad Films.
Home of Swedish Muhammad cartoonist attacked
The home of a Swedish artist who once drew a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad as a dog has been hit by a suspected arson attack, police said Saturday.
Lars Vilks, who lives in Nyhamnslage in southern Sweden, was not at home during the attack late Friday night and no one was reported injured.
It was the latest in a week of attacks on the 53-year-old cartoonist, who was assaulted Tuesday by a man while he lectured at a university and saw his Web site apparently attacked by hacker on Wednesday.
Police were alerted just before noon Saturday, as people passing by the artist’s house noted that several windows had been smashed. When officers arrived, they discovered plastic bottles filled with gasoline and fire damage on the surface of the building. Attackers are also suspected of having tried setting the inside of house on fire, but the flames are thought to have fizzled out.
Police have no suspects in the case, police Spokeswoman Sofie Osterheim said.
How about starting with the people who attacked him at the University?
A remark from Moe Lane,
Let me tell you what worries me about Europe. What worries me about Europe is not they’re going to collapse into some sort of prostrate client state of radical Islamist fanaticism. No, what worries me is that the Europeans have precisely two tools in their political toolbox: technocratic social democracy, and authoritarianism. Technocratic social democracy is rapidly demonstrating that it has absolutely no idea how to handle this kind of aggressive, violent religious fanaticism. Authoritarians… do. It will be the wrong answer, ethically speaking, but since when did that ever stop an authoritarian regime?
Particularly when cloaked in a socialist disguise…