no ifs or ands, and especially no buts

The terminally naive former nun Karen Armstrong, hailed after 9/11 as an expert on Islam and loved by the opinion elite for her counsel to turn the other cheek (which seems to be the one-size-fits-all recommendation of uber-Christians like Armstrong and that Carter fella to Westerners confronted by barbaric violence masquerading as Islam) is at it again. The headline for her latest opinion piece in the Guardian reads as follows:

An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values

Armstrong, addressing the thorny issue of freedom of expression, claims that it is “sacred” to the West:

In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual.

Then comes the inevitable but. But. But. But.

[Freedom of expression] has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie’s knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Armstrong claims that Muslims polled in ten countries admire our freedoms. So why, when confronted with Western freedom of expression that offends their sensibilities, are we treated to the fatwas, the hysteria, the rioting, and the exhortations to behead infidels who would dare to criticize what Muslims hold dear?

In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.

[e.a.]

In this formulation, the powerful West (all of it, including the editorial board of a Danish newspaper) should take the insecurity of Muslims (all 1.4 billion of them) into account before daring to criticize or offend them.

This is appropriately kind-hearted and “nice” and therefore politically correct. But it’s wrongheaded, and anti-democratic.

It is the unwillingness to name names, to criticize everyone equally—including those who perceive themselves to be weak—that contradicts Western values. Because it accords special (and condescending) rights to minorities at the sacrifice of the freedoms of the majority.

Freedom of speech for thee and for me.