The New York Times: Gutless and hypocritical

Not okay with the NY Times

Okay with the NY Times

The picture that the New York Times thinks it's okay to reproduce is The Holy Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili, described by the Times as an "eight-foot-high depiction of a black Virgin Mary, encrusted with a lump of elephant dung and collaged bottoms from pornographic magazines." That is, it's okay to offend Christians but not Moslems!

But the Times didn't mind offending Jews, Japanese, and blacks when it published these images.

The drawing on top was the winner in Pamela Geller's draw Muhammed contest in Texas, which of course the Times won't publish for the same reason it didn't publish any Charlie Hebdo cartoons or the Danish Muhammed cartoons. It justifies that with an attack on Geller in a weasly editorial: it didn't want to "inflict deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism"!

Closer to home, we have an apparent surrender to the Islamic bullyboys at the Daily Californian. UC Berkeley used to be known for the Free Speech Movement of the Sixties, but this generation rolls over quickly when confronted with free speech issues and Islam.

A woman, "born and raised a Muslim," wrote a blog piece for the Californian about why she rejects Islam. The Daily Cal removed the piece with this note: "This opinion blog has been retracted because of personal safety concerns" and "comments to this thread are now closed."

I sent this message to the editor, Kimberly Veklerov:

Why not publish the piece without using her name? Did the author agree to having her piece pulled for her own safety, or was that your decision? Did the author receive any credible threats? Some clarification would be helpful before I write about it on my blog.

No response yet.

See also this and this.

Thanks to Jihad Watch.