David French:
As of the moment I type this column, the available evidence indicates that two men claiming jihadist motivations attacked a Garland, Texas, free-speech event Sunday night but were gunned down by Garland police the instant they opened fire. A security guard was wounded, and the terrorists are dead. Ominously, ISIS-affiliated Twitter accounts claimed the attackers as “brothers.” According to early reports, one of the suspected gunmen — Elton Simpson — is an American Muslim who had been “convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago.” A federal judge, however, “ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group.” He apparently received only probation.
With the caveat that early reports are often wrong, the attack has all the hallmarks of an attempted Charlie Hebdo–style massacre, a potential mass murder stopped in its tracks by alert police. I have three initial thoughts.
First, as the media has obsessed over allegations of police abuse of power, the Garland police just showed how to defend the Constitution. The goal of jihadists is to intimidate the Western world into silence — mandating “respect” for their faith at the point of a gun. In the face of an armed threat, the defense of free speech requires more than marches, rallies, and speeches. It requires men with guns who are just as determined to protect liberty as the jihadists are to take it. In this country we’ve grown accustomed to defending free speech the easy way, with court filings and op-eds. The hard way requires the use of disciplined, deadly force — exactly the force applied by the Garland police.
In the face of an armed threat, the defense of free speech requires more than marches, rallies, and speeches. It requires men with guns.
Second, given ISIS’s demonstrated ability to inspire Western terror, we cannot assume the threat is over. While we can’t guard every potential terror target, it would be wise for all individuals and organizations that speak publicly against ISIS or the threat of Islamic terror more generally to take stock of their security needs and make sure they are not soft targets. Had there not been adequate security in Garland, the headlines today would be very different indeed, with America picking up the pieces after a massacre more deadly than the shootings atCharlie Hebdo.
I fully support free speech, but I do NOT agree with promoting cartoons of Muhammad for the sake of infuriating Muslims, regardless of how wrong it is to kill people because of a cartoon. The same goes for obligatory disrespect for any other religion, including Christianity.
What I have said is it is a right to draw a picture of Muhammad, but it should only be done if there is a context… a reason. To me, the winning entry is such a case. If what I have seen is accurate, the picture is of a saber-wielding Muhammad threatening the hand that is drawing him… genius.
@Bill:
I don’t support two sets of rules with “sacred cows” for some, and “open season” for others. Free speach is free speach regardless of who doesn’t like it. That’s how this nation is supposed to work. Yet, you will note:
Not a single business targeted by the LGBT by lawsuits has been owned and operated by Muslims.
The loss of black lives in inteactions with police, has lead to riots in those black communities with lefties standing firmly in support of the rioters, but would they do so if the person killed and rioters were mostly white?
I sometimes wonder how the left would treat Christians and Jews if radical groups from those two religions adopted the murderous terrorist tactics of Muslim extremists.
Cowardice and Fear leads to politically correctness for certain groups, while ‘no fear of reprisal’ leads to arrogant disdain and a freedom to insult others. The hypocracy of the political left is staggering.
@Ditto: Beyond any possible doubt, the left would leave Christians alone if every assault on Christian expression resulted in some leftist big-mouth being murdered in the street. They most certainly cowardly pick the soft targets because they know Christians do not behave that way.
Like wise, they cozy up to Islamists, excusing their every violent episode and making it someone else’s fault (the liberal mainstay). Little do they realize that their heads will be stacked right next to the heads of those who oppose radical Islam.