Glenn Reynolds's republication of the Jyllands cartoons stands in stark contrast to the rank cowardice (and fear) displayed by most of the MSM. I've commented on the fear before, and I admire the Rocky Mountain News and the Philadelphia Inquirer for not caving to it.

Because once it starts, when and where does it end? As I asked in an earlier post,

How long will it be before disagreeing with Imams about homosexuality or women's rights will be called "persecution" or "insulting Islam"?

Here's Andrew Sullivan, reflecting on on Bob Wright's call for self censorship in the context of Muslim calls for attacking gays:

The world has been terrorized for decades now by murderers who specifically cite Muhammad as their inspiration. It is completely legitimate speech to point that out. Not to point it out - to remain silent in the face of it - is an act of denial.The reason that so many Muslims are offended is not just because any depiction of Muhammad is taboo; but because the conflation of Islam and murder is now firmly fixed in the global consciousness. I can understand why the repetition of that fact should upset many peace-loving Muslims. But that is not the fault of cartoonists. It's the fault of the Muslim terrorists, and the failure of mainstream Muslims to condemn them sufficiently, ostracize them completely, and prevent them effectively from further mayhem. At this point, in my judgment, further appeasement of these religious terrorists is counter-productive - and actually enables the extremists in their simultaneous intimidation of moderate Muslims.

To take another example: Would Bob urge the gay marchers in Moscow not to parade, because it offends so many religious people, Orthodox and Muslim? Should gay people censor themselves to avoid offending others? Should women who object to the brutal subjugation of half the human race in many Islamic societies silence themselves? Maybe Bob would indeed argue for self-censorship in these cases. Maybe he wouldn't. After all, Islam is very clear about the fate of homosexuals and the role of women. But self-censorship is a slippery slope. Practising it after acts of mass murder runs a real risk of inviting more of them. As ACT-UP used to say, "Silence = Death." Which is why the Islamists want as much silence as possible.

(Via Ann Althouse.)

Let's see.

Looking back over the stuff I've posted at Classical Values, I'm a bit surprised to see that it all started with a post about Piglet, back in October. That's when I published the first Jyllands Muhammad cartoon. Nobody seemed to notice or care about the latter at the time. People were more concerned about Piglet. That was then. Everybody's forgotten about Piglet now.

At the time, I contributed my own little cut and paste:

Months went by before I republished another Jyllands cartoon -- this one showing Muhammad telling the suicide bombers they'd run out of virgins. At the same time, I speculated that the Philadelphia Inquirer wouldn't run the cartoons, and lo and behold they did! So I cut and pasted the Inky's hard copy of Muhammad with the bomb in the turban, plus more.

What really galled me was to see that the Jyllands cartoons were published by an Egyptian newspaper in September. About the same time as the British crackdown on Piglet.

So from what I can see, it all started with the Piglet crackdown appeasement.

What to do now? I guess there are the tiny Muhammad-based emoticons, which seem to be the latest outrage:

Muhammad (((:~{>

Muhammad playing Little Orphan Annie
(((8~{>

Muhammad as a pirate
(((P~{>

Muhammad on a bad turban day
))):~{>

Muhammad with sand in his eye
(((;~{>

Muhammad wearing sunglasses
(((B~{>

Muhammad giving the raspberry.
(((:~{P>

Giving Muhammad the raspberry.

;-P

Every depiction, however small, is a statement against appeasement.

An act of love, even.

Just ask Piglet!

P(iglet) B(e) U(nto) H(im)