On the contrary, many Muslims rejected Geller’s right to freedom of expression, admitting that even as Americans they believe there should be limits to free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Here in Toronto, one well-known local Muslim tweeted: “This has nothing to do with free speech, don’t kid yourself. Go do a ‘Draw a Jew’ event & see what I mean.”
I asked him to expand a bit on why he had inserted Jews into the discussion, but he did not respond.Not meaning to put words in the well-known (albeit purposely anonymous--why not identify him, Tarek?) local's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he "inserted Jews" because that's what the Koran and Hadith do--insert Jews in order to condemn them for being the lowest of the low, thereby building up Islam and Muslims by comparison. (For more on the subject, see the chapter on Islamic theology in David Nirenberg's must-read book, Anti-Judaism.)
Oh, and BTW, we know what would happen were there a 'Draw a Jew' event. It's the same thing that happens every time there's an Ayatollah-sponsored 'Draw and Deny the Holocaust' event. There'd be some kvetching, maybe, and nothing else.
Update: Draw a Jew...
...and a drawing by a Jew (Modigliani):
(I don't think the above are what the well-known but unnamed local Muslim had in mind with his "Draw a Jew" event. What he was thinking of was probably more alone the lines of this.)
Update: Apropos feeling offended because of Motoons, and how that's merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the other things that could set off the thin-skinned and hot-headed, here's part of the speech Robert Spencer delivered at the Texas free speech event:
Consider this — the murderers of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had an accomplice. And as they were murdering the cartoonists, the accomplice went to a kosher supermarket in Paris and murdered four Jews. What have they done? They didn’t draw Muhammad. How did they offend Muslims? They offended Muslims by being Jewish.
Okay, so we have to not draw Muhammad, because that’ll poke them in the eye and offend them. And then we have to not be Jewish, because that will poke them in the eye and offend them. And then what? Okay, I guess pork and alcohol are right out. Okay, and then what? Take — humor, yes.
And the Islamic State — the Islamic State is beheading people and taking sex slaves, and subjugating the Christians under the hegemony of the Islamic law. And they’re doing it all on the basis of Koranic directives. And so that’s all Islamic. So I guess we can’t say a word about that. Because that would poke them in the eye and offend Muslims.
And you see, step by step by step, we’re ending up going in the direction of accepting Islamic law. And every Western media outlet that refused to publish the Muhammad cartoons was accepting Islamic blasphemy law...And yet, according to the PEN members boycotting their gala, it's about the West's sins of colonialism and white privilege, the sins these soft-hearted leftist believe should have precluded PEN giving a prize to the privileged--if now dead and gone--Charlie Hebdo staffers. Here's the pertinent paragraph in the boycotter's petition:
Power and prestige are elements that must be recognized in considering almost any form of discourse, including satire. The inequities between the person holding the pen and the subject fixed on paper by that pen cannot, and must not, be ignored.
To the section of the French population that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises, and that contains a large percentage of devout Muslims, Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as being intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.The words of folks who get nada about Charlie Hebdo, a rude, crude--and, oh, yeah, leftist--rag in the French tradition; a publication that can't even be called an equal opportunity lampooner, since it ridiculed Christianity far more often that it did Muslims.