Victims provocateurs

Does anyone else find it ironic that the folks that are the first to make accusations of "islamophobia" seem to be terrified at the thought of offending muslims?

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the merits of Pamela Geller's "art" show. Risking one's one life to make a point is one thing, bringing others into your risky behavior puts it in a little different category. The folks that bought their tickets made a conscious choice, but the event facility staff and the police providing security weren't there to make a 1st amendment statement. That's not wrong, it's just the way things work. Under the circumstances the situation worked out remarkably well. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder what the national discussion would be if it hadn't. If the cop that literally saved the day had been killed in the effort, or if a member of the event facility staff had been harmed - what would the discussion look like in that aftermath? How might that alter the exchange between Katie Couric and Pam?

The Chris Krok show last night had me doing a lot of head shaking. Mr Krok was wound up over the fact that some people think Pamela Geller needs government protection in the wake of ISIS threats over the muhammad drawing contest. Similar opposition to her protection is being expressed by folks of all political persuasions all over social media. An American citizen has been threatened with death by an international organization that has demonstrated both the will and the capacity to follow through on those threats. But folks like Chris are willing to abandon Pam to the wolves because she "was asking for it". One of the legitimate roles of government is actually to defend its citizens. It is certainly compatible with American first principles to protect Pam Geller in this case. The popularity of her message, or the wisdom of her actions, is incidental to decisions about her protection. If anything, the fact that this threat is related to the exercise of her natural rights should rally conservatives to her protection, even if they disagree with her approach. Any American that is credibly threatened by ISIS should be able to count on government protection.

Appeasers have always had a hang-up with provocation. Pamela Geller's actions are as irrelevant to the actions of the two terrorists that showed up in Garland, as the actions of the military folks attacked by Hasan were to him. Provocation had nothing to do with these cases. Mr Krok's case regarding protecting Pam Geller is built on the fallacy that these two terrorists would have remained eternally harmless if only Pam hadn't done something to offend them. The fact is that these killers are perpetually offended by the very existence of people like Pam Geller, and Chris Krok. The Garland terrorists were determined to do harm and they sought out a high profile event to terrorize. Telling Pam Geller not to draw muhammad cartoons, or not to drive a car, or not to go outside without a hijab, is only going to reveal the next item in an infinite list of things that offend terrorists.

Chris thought he had a caller in a corner when he pointedly asked if Terry Jones (the koran burning Florida pastor) should have received government protection. The situations have similarities and they have differences. The clearest difference is that there weren't credible death threats against Jones. If there had been, the answer to Chris's gotcha question would be "yes". Where I am ambivalent about Geller, I have enormous disrespect for Terry Jones. That doesn't mean that I think society should stand by and watch him be murdered in the face of a credible death threat. Protecting people we disagree with is as American as Apple Pie.

There will be more attacks in the United States. Silencing Pam Geller, or sacrificing her to ISIS won't keep them from happening. Saying that free speech is "protected" doesn't mean that it's protected from American government, but we won't protect you from foreign entities that want to kill you for it. The American thing to do is to protect Pam Geller before, during, and after she says things that people might get offended over. The terrorists may blame Pam for the next terrorist attack. The appeasers may join them, or they may all identify some other victim to blame. The conviction that finding just the right way to cower before oppression is the key to peace has no basis in history. You might even say it's a crock.