Can Europe Defend Its Liberal Values?

The low characters of the Muslim world are rioting and burning while their statist overlords quietly applaud, titter, and observe from their balconies. In response to cartoons drawn by Danish artists, printed in a Danish newspapers distributed in Denmark, and as a protest against the very portrayals of Islam (and its prophet) the defenders of the faith set out with such determination to reinforce. . . .

Caricature (ht Gaijin Biker):

Reality (ht Small Wars Journal):

The charicature is relative flattery compared to this. It’s difficult to choose just one image, of course. There are so many. So very many.

The mindset that appears to predominate in this part of the world: We reserve the right to terrorize, burn, and kill anyone on earth if someone remotely connected to him offends us.

It’s very discouraging to anyone who wants to believe that there is hope for the Middle East.

It’s moments like this when you appreciate America’s balance between confidence in its values and respect for dissent. The Middle East is skewed toward the former and against the latter, while Europe proclaims the latter but lacks the former. Can liberal Europe defend its liberal values against such a determined medievel mindset? Is its unbelief as strong as the Middle East’s faithful belief and determination to impose it violently on everyone, everywhere? It’s a question of increasing relevance when you ponder the present ridiculousness of this statement:

An interesting side-effect of the Danish cartoon affair might be the invasion of Syria by U.S. forces. As you can read in this CNN article, the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus were burned down by angry mobs on Sunday.

Now, depending on the level of (passive) involvement by the Syrian regime, one could make the case this is an act of war. And since Norway and Denmark are both NATO members, Bush can invoke article V of the NATO charter that says an attack on one member state is an attack against all of them…

Presto! Legal casus belli… and no need to find further justifications in hidden WMD’s, terror sponsoring or the need for ‘regime change’. Just point the tanks in Baghdad to Damascus and start driving…

Although, in fairness, Denmark has been a relatively steadfast ally of the United States (which has reinvigorated my interests in buying up one of these kits, and trust me, this is just too cool to be true). So let us ask a better rhetorical question by shifting my moving counterclockwise, temporally and geographically speaking, to France and its recent troubles. France would assuredly be on its own.

Will Europe stands up for its values–whatever they are–or will it tactly yield to the violence of mobs near and far by imposing an unwritten, unspoken censorship on its media? You have to wonder, when it’s doubtful that Europe even has the military wherewithal to protect its embassies, evacuate its beleagured citizens, or even keep the peace in its own cities.

And when America almost certainly isn’t as willing to fight Europe’s battles as it would have been five years ago.

Update: My small gesture of support will be days of lovely, stinky Danish cheese in my lunchbox. The Big Hominid, a regular practitioner of more-or-less principled blasphemy, speaks cogently to the heart of the issue:

This is where the West needs to take a stand and say that, yes, we’re a pluralistic people, but our very pluralism entails a deep respect for freedom of expression. Tolerance might not be the same as agreement or acceptance, but tolerance– primarily marked by a forbearance from violence– is crucial in a pluralistic society. Pluralism doesn’t equate to spinelessness: it does indeed contain its own exclusivism, as I’ve written elsewhere. From the pluralist’s point of view, some thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors are unjustifiable.