As a footnote to the disingenuous rumblings of Jakob Illeborg and assorted Muslim grandees, here’s Oliver Kamm, saying what needs to be said.

My argument was that having concern for the feelings of others – such as the sensibilities of Muslims offended by the Danish cartoons – should be no part of public policy. One aspect of the debate on free speech that I found particularly worrying was this:

The debate has not been aided – it has indeed been severely clouded – by an imprecise use of the term ‘respect’. If this is merely a metaphor for the free exercise of religious and political liberty, then it is an unexceptionable principle, but also an unclear and redundant usage. Respect for ideas and those who hold them is a different matter altogether. Ideas have no claim on our respect; they earn respect to the extent that they are able to withstand criticism.

The usage I’m criticising is a common part of the debate on free speech. Among innumerable examples, consider this well intentioned remark by a Danish Muslim, as reported by the BBC after the recent republication in Denmark of one of the offending cartoons:

“I am hurt, as I was the first time,” says Feisal, who works in marketing and was also born in Denmark. He believes the problem is not Danish society but the media. “The Danish press should have learned from their previous mistakes and the only thing the Muslims are asking for is respect, nothing else”.

It’s not just that I believe Feisal’s requirement should be ignored by policy makers lest it lead to illiberal outcomes such as censorship of the press. I consider his position inherently unreasonable – as if “respect, nothing else” were some minimal demand… 

It is a widespread notion that deeply held convictions are at least entitled to respect – when in reality there is no “at least” about it, and no entitlement either. The challenging of beliefs is an often brutal business, but the ensuing and almost inevitable hurt is emotional and not physical. There is nothing wrong in this; it is how knowledge advances.

Indeed. And despite its obviousness, I’m guessing the above will bear repeating.

Ravishing Beasts is a site devoted to taxidermy through the ages. Of particular interest is the section on theatrical taxidermy, which includes such antiquated marvels as the Kitten Tea Party and Kitten Wedding. The latter is described thus:

Completed in 1898, “The Kitten Wedding” was Walter Potter’s last large work (although he was working on squirrel court scene before his stroke in 1914) and the only one in which the animals are dressed. The lady kittens have cream brocade gowns, frilly knickers, gaudy beads and earrings. The bride has a brass ring on her finger, and the groomsmen sport wild woolly heads and morning suits. The whole scene includes eighteen kittens with enormous, bulging eyes, a parson, an altar, and a rail.

Other oddities of note include boxing squirrels, hedonistic chipmunks and a menagerie of fraudulent beasts.

(h/t, Coudal.)