Cartoon Controversy

This was the closest we came to seeing the Mohammed cartoons.

Free speech didn't do so well today.

The Objectivist Club at NYU has been planning an event titled: Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons. The event was supposed to be a panel
discussion with a representative from the Ayn Rand Institute, the president of F.I.R.E, an author on Islam, and a former editor of the NY Press. During the discussion, the group planned to show the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed. This last bit caused a bit of trouble.

I won't go into the whole backstory here, for that, check Instapundit or Diana Hsieh.

I went to Kimmel today to see what was going on and to try to get into the event.

I arrived around 5:30, and was greeted by police officers and NYU security at the doors of Kimmel. I went around the corner to see about getting tickets, but I was informed that the tickets were sold out. After explaining that students had been coming in to get tickets and then tearing them up, they explained that they couldn't do anything about that.

I went back to Kimmel where the rally was scheduled to be, and after showing my ID to get in the door, I stopped to see the protest in the entryway. There were about 60 people, including the NYU President and other administrators, sitting on the steps to hear the speakers. The speakers included representatives from the Islamic Center, a Rabbi who opposed the publication of the cartoons, and a representative from the Campus Anti-War Network. What they had to do with the theme, I'll never know.




After the rally finished at around 6:15, the students from the Islamic Center set up prayer rugs outside, at the south side of the park, and held their evening prayer there. (Oddly enough, they faced north during the prayer, I'm not sure if there was a reason for this or not.)



While this was finishing up, I began to see about possible ways to get into the presentation. Security was incredibly tight, with NYU Security, NYPD, Men-in-suits-with-earpieces (MISWE's), and a metal detector at the entry to the event. The elevators were set not to go to the fourth floor, so I tried the stairs. No luck, security there. I ended up going back downstairs and talking to the security guards to see if they could let me up without a ticket. That got me nowhere fast, but I decided to hop on the line anyways. After I got up to the front, I asked about possibly letting NYU students in after it becomes clear that the event wasnt sold out, and was told that if I hung around, I might be able to get in.

Luckily, a few minutes later, an Administrator ushered the other students waiting and I in, over to the only elevator that was going to the fourth floor.

Arrived at the event, passed through security, and made it in around 7:10. The first thing I noticed upon entering were the easels standing on the stage sans cartoons. The event was delayed until around 7:25 before starting, but moved along from there. The president of the Objectivist club (An indian female, for those of you who insist that this must be a racist stunt), opened the discussion by explaining that because of the decision to allow non-NYU people into the discussion, the cartoons would NOT be shown. The crowd of around 200 was not exactly enthusiastic about this.

The panel was introduced, and gave their opening statements.

From left to right, the person in the middle was the moderator.

Peter Schwartz began, attacking the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism which he said was reflected in intolerance, oppression, and terrorism. Fair statement there. He had some choice, Ayn Rand-ish sound bites, such as "Faith is blind obedience in defiance of reason," and characterizing Islamic totalitarianism as an "attack on the free, rational mind."

Dr. Andrew Bostom was next, and was perhaps the most critical of Islam of the four panel members. He discussed the many depictions of Islam through history, and attacked what he saw as the enablement of the terrorists by Muslim leaders who did not condemn these actions.

Jonathan Leaf was up third, discussing the NY Press's decision not to print these cartoons. He's the recent author of a play that criticizes an actual act of terrorism committed because some fanatics believed that another play was going to depict Mohammed. He had some choice points to make, such as stating that Mohammed Atta was sexually confused. He was also the fiercest in criticizing the university, saying "There is something deeply wrong that here in a university we cannot put these things up." While several of the speakers made reference to Salmon Rushie and the fatwa placed on his head by Iran, Leaf mentioned that he spoke to Rushdie a few weeks ago, and talked to him about the issue. He also argued that Iran's call for the death of a British citizen was an act of war.

Last, but not least, Greg Lukianoff spoke about the Heckler's Veto and its enforcement at NYU. He called the idea that the university would ban the cartoons from being presented "chilling and absurd." He made the point that Muslims, some of the biggest beneficiaries of the Bill of Rights, (without which, their rights certainly would have been curtailed after 9/11), would be so opposed to something protected under it. (For the record, one of the cosponsors of the program was a Muslim student.) Regarding the decision of the press not to print the cartoons because of "sensitivity to religious beliefs," he noted the recent decision of the NYTimes to publish a conspicuous picture of a Hasidic Jew, while noting that his faith precluded him from having his picture published.

I was forced to leave before the end of the debate, as I had to come back for a staff meeting, but all in all, I think it was very informative. As I was leaving, people were STILL in line, waiting to get through the metal detector. Barring some outrageous event occurring in the last bit of the program, I think the only bit of "news" there tonight was that if you complain loud enough, and people are scared enough, you can get what you want. And that's sad.

Or at least this guy thought so.