Feel like reading some sweeping generalisations and blatant self-contradiction? Check out Jonah Goldberg in the LA Times.

Wow. Considering the date, I'd like to have thought this was a joke article. The guy's so off base I don't know were to begin.

First off, if you want to talk about "smugness", let's look at the contention that anyone who displays a "Darwin fish" exhibits moral cowardice. I'm hearing this a lot from certain Christian quarters these days, pissing and moaning about how "the media wouldn't dare" portray Jews or Muslims in the same way it does Christians. The general public don't greet criticism or plain mockery of Christianity in the same way they do the other big two because they know that a) the church's founder espoused non-violent, even meek acceptance of such treatment; b) that there's no active paramilitary Christian group currently engaged in campaigns of murder or intimidation (although if you work in the field of human fertility, your perspective might be different); and c) no nation in living memory made an industry of shovelled Christians into ovens. In time, we will blithely make films, books and cartoons that treat all three with the same amount of respect and contempt. In the past, Christians were executed on a mass scale, and later committed atrocities when given the upper hand. Those days are gone. That's cause for celebration, not disingenuous claims that the church is some kind of underdog, tired of being kicked around by all these secular superpowers. Right now, there's a good few raw Islamic and Judaic wounds and we're not quite ready to talk as freely and openly about those two as we do about the good old, established church that arguably hasn't given us any major grief since the Inquisition.

His comparison between the use of the fish symbol and the Star of David is utterly pathetic. Even those who don't fully understand the origins of the fish symbol know it's not THE emblem of Christian faith. The use of The Cross in a likewise manner would be offensive, and if it were happening Goldberg would be right to decry it. However his carping about the "cancer" at the heart of Islam- including, in his view, censorship and lack of freedom- does not sit well in the same article with the contention that those who make a joke about creationism are committing a hate crime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the teaching of evolutionary theory in American schools still a very active debate? Aren't those who display this symbol adding their voice, in satirical mode, to that debate? If Christians have a problem with the Darwin fish, my advice remains the same as it ever was; instead of getting all idignant, make with some jokes, make them more often, louder and, above all, better than the non-believer. In that manner you'll retain the moral high ground so precious to you and you might just win the long lost middle ground too.

If we needed a neat example of of two universal truths, that freedom of expression must be protected and that religion (definitively, inherently based on faith i.e. belief in that which cannot be proven or demonstrated) and the state (the dimenions of which are established by laws which in themselves depend on material evidence and empirical facts) must be kept separate, we have it in the sad affair of Mrs Gibbons and the Sudanese Teddy Bear (which sounds like an unpublished Holmes case, except even latter-day Conan Doyle wouldn't dare attempt a plot so potty).

There are some who would argue that this is just another scare story, grist to the mill of an Islamaphobic British mass media hungry for any opportunity to portray Muslims as the bad guys. I'm afraid I can't agree, as sympathetic as I am to that case (the wildly speculative stories that surfaced during the death of Pakistan's national cricket coach Bob Woolmer are just one alternative example I could point to in support of it). That our press should not report on a Briton arrested overseas and facing the prospect of a public flogging - regardless of the specific charges and prosecuting nation- is unthinkable, an absurd suggestion. That the case in question happens to be one concerning a bugaboo de jour (Islamic tradition concerning the use of the prophet's name and/or image) is certainly unfortunate, although it has been heartening to see the number of Muslims- within the Sudanese community and elsewhere- who have used the incident as an opportunity to speak out on the issue in moderate and reasonable terms, reminding anyone willing to listen that not everyone with roots in the Islamic world is a slavering jihadist, despite what certain British tabloids and Republican presidential candidates would have us believe.

However a perfectly innocent woman has been subjected to a gruelling ordeal, needlessly and publicly. Why? A comment posted here suggests that a school were Mulsim and non-Muslim children are educated together by both Mulslim and non-Muslim, even Western and avowedly Christian, staff would sorely vex certain figures in the country, figures who might seek any opportunity- no matter how tenuous- to mount a legal challenge to its very existence. Is that kind of orgnaised vendetta what's happened here? Or is this pathetic prosecution just a gesture from a hopeless government, attempting to demonstrate some muscle to its people and the world, while all the while the open wound of Darfur weeps on and on?

On a rainy weekend afternoon, the Film4 channel is normally worth a look. Yesterday's offering was The Thief of Bagdad(sic), 1940.

The film is pretty creaky and as racially dubious as you'd expect for the time. All of the male cast members, with the exception of Sabu (one of the most naturally charismatic screen actors who ever lived) are blacked up and the woman are just left to play white-as-rice Arabian totty. And the dialogue is riddled with that "may the bird of paradise cast jewelled peaches upon your fragrant bosom" type stuff. What's striking is the freedom with which Islamic tradition and Allah are invoked by all and sundry (Favourite line: "Her eyebrows are like the crescent moon of Ramadan..."). Hard to imagine modern Hollywood producing a film featuring an avowedly Islamic hero from the tales of Schehrazade. The forties and fifties saw a raft of feature films and shorts featuring the likes of Abu the Thief, The Poet from Kismet, Ali Baba and Sinbad the Sailor. Back then, the boogey man was European (In The Thief of Bagdad the magnificent Conrad Veidt plays Jaffar and doesn't even attempt to modulate his teutonic accent.) and so an Arabian milieu, albeit a romaticised one, posed no problems.

Now the climate has shifted, the face of fear is wreathed by beard and turban and even the anodyne version of Aladdin released by Disney in the nineties would be a tough sell today. The irony of yesterday's film was almost painful at points:
"Basrah! How beautiful it looks!"
"How beautiful it smells!"

Hmm. Meanwhile, it now seems certain that the major North American screen acting and writing unions will be calling for strike action in the very near future. This has caused a panic among the big studios and a whole slew of films are now being rushed to completion before the A-list walks. A leaked memo was reproduced in this month's Empire magazine, listing dozens of movies currently up against the clock. Of these, 18% are either clear remakes or at least retellings of stories that have been done before*; 9% are franchise sequels/prequels; 19% are based on existing novels, prose or comics; 6% on televison shows; 4% on toy lines, computer games or theme park attractions; and 56% are entirely new ideas. I know the percentage total is over a hundred, but some scripts tick more than one box. Whatever, that last percentile is crucial and probably a slightly healthier prognosis for original screenwriting than most would imagine. Yet it's among the toy adaptations we find something interesting: Jerry Bruckheimer, of all people!, is trying to get a film based on Prince of Persia off the ground. I don't imagine the game is a particularly sensitive evocation of the Iranian region's ancient history, but there's no getting around the fact that its protagonist is an Arab. We'll see what happens.

*Btw, in the "really not necessary, thanks" department are Fox's remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still (cgi Gort?!), Sony's of The Taking of Pelham 123 (whither a modern day Matthau?) and- worst of all- Universal's desecration of their own horror catalogue with new versions of The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Wolf Man and the bajillionth riff on Dracula... Ho hum.

Spent the morning adding some new stuff over on the 'tooning site; mostly pieces from the archive and morgue files, but some of it never-before-seen. Restructured the whole site a little as well.

Not sure how the thing's flowing because my computer is- as The Simpsons' Mark Twain spoof had it- "powerful weak." Let me know if you encounter any problems.

As four (nice) of the "Remember the Fantastic Four!" Danish embassy cartoon protestors are jailed, the BBC reports that the whole affair has actually been pretty beneficial to the Denmark establishments on both sides of the argument; mosques in the country report increased visitor numbers, while the blow to Danish exports east has been emiliorated by an increase in demand elsewhere in Europe. Obviously radical Islam farther afield has been able to use it the whole mess as a rallying cry as well. The only losers, in fact, are cartoonists. The BBC notes that ten of the artists involved in the controversy have "yet to appear in public." No doubt the memory of Theo van Gogh looms large in their minds.

The recent brouhaha over Salman Rushdie's knighthood is relevant. I've never read any of his books, and so I can't argue whether he's that great a writer. And I doubt he didn't consider that the east might be a bit miffed by The Satanic Verses, and so any accusations of foolhardiness also carry some weight, I think. But I don't reckon he could have predicted or welcomed the response of Iran in particular, and the subsequent fatwa that had he and his family gripped by fear and the threat of bloddy retribution for years on end. Those who moan about the expense of the protection extended to him during that period are probably- I suspect- the same people who begrudge NHS care to anyone other than the most scrupulously health conscious and therefore "deserving" people, or who'd deny ex-convicts protection or care once returned to the community.

If he's getting a gong for any reason at all, it's surely for the bravery he displayed during that period of his life, and not a tacit approval for behaviour that pisses off Ayatollahs. And even if it were, we return to the nub of the matter; accept free speech as a concept (including words that contradict, criticise, offend or insult the mainstream) or embrace facism. It strikes me that the four fellows now cooling their heels at Her Majesty's have been inprisoned for no more or less than being woefully stupid and faintly embarrassing. Jail a man for committing acts of violence, not describing them. Arm yourself against an enemy who attacks you with swords and bombs, not placards and banners. And save your loathing for those who persecute horrible, illegal, literal wars, not glorious literary battles.