Melanie Phillips pulls no punches. She says:
The case of Gillian Gibbons, the British teacher jailed in Sudan after her pupils named their class teddy-bear Mohammed, has shown up once again the spinelessness of the Foreign Office which has turned Britain into an international laughing stock.
Her freedom has been left to depend on the ostensibly freelance efforts by two Muslim peers, Lord Ahmed and Lady Warsi, who have been in Khartoum lobbying for her release. .
Mr Miliband should have thrown the ambassador and every Sudanese diplomat out of the country, cancelled all visas and stopped British aid to Sudan.
And he should also have denounced the religious precepts which produced such a barbaric response to a preposterously imagined slight.
Moreover, the only reason Mrs Gibbons was placed in this predicament at all was: because, for more than two decades, the British Government has kow-towed to the Islamist rogue regime in Sudan. (More . . - Melanie Phillips proceeds to chronicle the history and nature of the Sudanese government and the situation in Britain)
Update - National Review asked a number of distinguished observers to offer their thoughts. These included Bay Yeor, Jonathan Foreman,Tawfik Hamid, Victor Davis Hanson, Paul Marshall,
Clifford D. May, Andrew C. McCarthy, Daniel Pipes, Father James V. Schall, and Robert Spencer.
Foreman concluded his comments saying:
As for the absurd blasphemy charge in the teddy-bear case, it should be clear by now that the standard cowardly response of Western societies to “Muslim anger” helps no-one; indeed it empowers extremists and encourages an Islamic sensibility that is both hypersensitive and bullying. Perhaps we need to show that, though we are no longer have an “honor culture,” we too can be dangerously offended, especially by the uncivilized religious intolerance of certain Muslim states.
Clifford May conclulded his comments this way:
Here’s what ought to be happening: The few civilized and not spineless nations of the world should be recalling their ambassadors for “consultations,” making it clear to al-Bashir that he is risking all foreign aid and economic cooperation. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown should be quietly sending al-Bashir the message that he will hold him personally responsible for Ms. Gibbons’s welfare. And two rumors should be spread: 1) that Brown is re-reading Churchill’s The River War, and 2) that British Special Forces are on alert. Brown can deny both publicly.
After Ms. Gibbons is freed, there should be no effort to quickly “put the incident behind us.” An apology and a commitment to tolerance in the future should be expected.
Instead, I fear, when this is over, the West will be one step closer to accepting the deal the Islamists are demanding: They get to say — and do — anything at all in regard to Christians and Jews. But Christians and Jews — “infidels” who are the descendants of monkeys and swine — are to learn their place and avoid acting uppity, either at home or abroad.
Pipes refers to
two of the deepest problems in modernizing Islam. One is permitting freedom of speech concerning Mohammed, the Koran, and other aspects of the religion. The other concerns the right of Muslims to leave Islam. These twin transitions must be accomplished for Islam to leave its current backward and oppressive condition.
Spencer asked
Will the West acquiesce in the Islamic world’s efforts to place Islam beyond criticism, when it needs to be reexamined and reformed more than ever? Or will we stand up and defend ourselves and our societal principles of free speech and free inquiry? The teddy-bear incident, as ridiculous as it is, only underscores the urgency of these questions.