Nicolai Sennels has the report.
Swedish artist Lars Vilks takes revenge: Draws Mohammed on attackers’ egg
by Nicolai Sennels
I met the Swedish artist Lars Vilks at a lecture in the Danish Free Speech Society a couple of years ago. A very relaxed, friendly and polite man with a great sense of humor. He clearly does not makes his criticism of religions out of anger. He is what most artists are — politically aware — but while most suffer from Islamophobia (fear of Islam), Vilks dares to make fun of the history’s most sensitive prophet and his followers as well.
Some people say that art has to provoke in order to be art — but why do so few dare to provoke Muslims?
Lars Vilks was on Jihad Jane’s kill list for drawing the Rondellhund (a roundabout dog, a strange Swedish custom: a statue of a dog made of wood, metal, plastic, etc. and placed in a traffic roundabout) a dog with the face of Mohammed, their (always ‘their’) prophet.
At a recent lecture, Vilks showed a picture of their prophet Mohammed in front of a beer bottle, and 15 Arab looking men stood up, shouted their Islamonauseating slogan “Allahu Akhbar” and tried to spread Islamophobia (fear of Islam) by throwing eggs at Vilks. Vilks was quickly escorted out of the room by the police:
One of the eggs did not break, and Vilks managed to pick it up and bring it home. For revenge he drew their prophet on it and published the picture:
The Washington Post showed a clear sign of fear of Islam (Islamophobia) by omitting that the attackers screamed “Allahu Akhbar”…
For previous posts on Lars Vilks and the Roundabout Dogs, see the Modoggie Archives.
Nicolai Sennels is a psychologist and the author of “Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s experiences with the Copenhagen Municipality”.
Previous posts:
13 comments:
Baron, I thought a 'phobia' was an unfounded fear, while fear of islam has a pretty sound basis? So they were trying spread a real, justified fear of being attacked by islamists - surely not a phobia? We need another word perhaps...
Susan
Susan --
Ah, but this post was written by Nicolai, not by me.
Had I been the author, I would have employed different phrasing. I never use the word "Islamophobia" except ironically, and generally in scare quotes.
Ditto for "racism", "hate", and other words and phrases that are prevalent in the cant of Multiculturalism.
Whoops, sorry. Still, we do need a snappy word for justified fear of islam. What would work?
This quiet unassuming man, Mr. Vilks is a true western warrior in his own way, unbowed by threats as is the Mohammed turban bomb cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who has been assaulted in his own home by a Muslim would be assassin. Both these intrepid artists understand one must do more of whatever gets Muslims incensed, not capitulate. If enough westerners broke through the leftist forged chains of political correctness to give Islam and its practitioners the critical spanking they truly deserve, many Muslims might actually leave our too welcoming shores or explode with anger instead of bomb vests. The egghead Mohammed is priceless.
I am puzzled by one thing: why isn't it the assailants who were quickly hustled out of the room?
Because "hustling" violent Jihadis out of a room is not easy to accomplish quickly without unrestricted use of lethal force. Which can be dangerous for the rest of the audience.
I have to admit some bafflement over the meaning of the portrait of Mohammad on the unbroken egg. Is it going to be hurled at something?
Chiu ChunLing,
Just another form of validating the heckler's veto, eh?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Hustling the intended victim out of the room is a perfectly good security measure, but it's terrible for overall peace and security if it's the only one.
The police need to hustle the jihadi assailants to the jail cell in their police station.
Egghead
Egghead, I looked to see if you made a comment on the, uh, Moface Egghead! I think a Moface Soccer Ball makes more sense, regards,
You New
I have to say that I think that the "Heckler's veto" is a necessary and important part of a genuinely free and open society. Or, to put it somewhat differently, it is Lars Vilks who is engaging in "heckling" an excessively pompous and uncriticized ideology.
But that really has (or rather, should have) nothing to do with the simple fact that it is not possible to both safely and quickly remove potentially violent criminals from a public setting. That is a matter of the essential nature of violence.
So, I would have no problem at all validating the "Heckler's veto", which is what gives Lars Vilks the right to use ridicule to undermine the public narrative that Muslims want for Islam and Mohammad. But the existence of Mr. Vilks' right to do that doesn't remove the potential danger of violence, and the need to use caution when dealing with people that have demonstrated a willingness to resort to criminal violence.
The story does not say (and the footage does not suggest, if you watch it) that there was no action taken to restrict the ability of the perpetrators to engage in further criminal acts. But as anyone that has dealt with a potentially violent criminal can tell you, it is not a simple matter of saying "go go go" and having them immediately cooperate by running in exactly the direction that was previously calculated for everyone's safety.
Is the symbolic fight against criminal ideology important? I believe it is, and I try to contribute to it. But the actual, sometimes deadly, always dangerous and uncertain, battles against violent criminals cannot be won without use of intelligent tactics and a strategy beyond relying on symbolic "victory". Convincing people that fighting is necessary may be important, but when fighting really is necessary, it must consist of more than persuasive symbolism.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
"I have to say that I think that the 'Heckler's veto' is a necessary and important part of a genuinely free and open society...
So, I would have no problem at all validating the 'Heckler's veto' ', which is what gives Lars Vilks the right to use ridicule to undermine the public narrative that Muslims want for Islam and Mohammad."
I have to say, rather, that perhaps you don't understand what the phrase "Heckler's Veto" actually means. Lars Vilks isn't trying to shut down someone else's presentation of their ideas...
Actually, I think that the persons who thus define "Heckler's veto" are demonstrating that they don't understand the difference between hecklers and violent criminals.
I maintain that there is a difference, and that the august deliberations that gave us so many wonderful evasions of the simple rule of law are to be distrusted when they abuse common sense to such a degree.
Hi You Knew: Yes, I had to comment on this thread. A Mo-face soccer ball is an excellent idea. Maybe Lars will draw one for the English footballers to use. Ha!
Egghead
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.