Applebaum is correct that more than the West's usual suspects (FoxNews, et al) needed to chime in on this one. To that end, why did it take Slate editors a week to publish this piece? I have been waiting for some type of commentary on this farce of a controversy.

I call it farcical for a number of reasons-- Britain's mincing steps toward "diplomacy" with genocidal governments; the fact that it was the children themselves who first named the toy; the Christian school headmaster saying teacher's jail sentence was "appropriate;" and, perhaps most disturbingly, reports that the Sudanese government had encouraged/solicited the very crowds calling for her execution (most Western media have been reporting it as though blood-crazed fanatics independently organized themselves into mobs).

My sympathies to non-fanatical Muslims living in the West--for all your dismayed protests, the non-Muslim majority has yet more "ammunition" against Islamic populations in general. Having said that, though, I'm one of those people who respects religion greatly but believes governments and constitutions should be firmly secular in nature. There are too many religious, ethnic and cultural minority groups suffering from governments rooted in a single religion or ethnicity.

You've made many valid points in your comments, but I would like to take issue with your comment about "Britain's mincing steps..." True, the approach may seem "mincing" but one has to bear in mind that the goal of the foreign service people involved was to get their citizen out of there and away from harm -- this is one of the basic functions of the diplomatic corps of any nation -- providing assistance to their citizens overseas. In this, they've performed remarkably well -- because what they did worked. Not only did it work for now, but because they negotiated a "pardon" from the Sudanese "president" she is more likely to be safer in the longer run, since if her transgression is officially "forgiven" then it's much less probable that fanatics will go looking for her outside of the Sudan so as to serve their version of justice. So the British diplomatic effort here was spot on -- they knew where their responsibilities lay and protected their citizen.

didn't neville chamberlain negotiate with hitler about how much of europe could be enslaved, before world war 2 started?

we've seen this sort of diplomacy before, and its "unbearable"

Marzipan:

Tis a good thing that Western media has chimed in on the Sudanese intolerance controversy.

Is there some suggestion that these folks deserve a pass, or perhaps our journalists might be working on a more worthy storyline.

I am sure that it is hardly a farce for the poor schmucks

who are facing the repression in The Sudan. Hooray for journos for once again exposing the hideous face of this evil regime.

If there is any mincing going on it would be from those who

Would castigate a Catholic or even secular dictatorship for

a similar human rights violation while giving the Sudanese a pass. Does anyone remember the canning incident in Singapore several years ago?

Had the young violator spit chewing gum into the street or something similar?

Human rights advocates presented a united front at that time.

Agreed, it’s all about ammunition; principals be dammed if it blows a whiff of oxygen toward George Bush's White House.

Not really sure why your sympathies are with non-fanatical Muslims living in the West. I don't see mobs of non-Muslim Westerners abusing Muslims in the West, any where.

Instead you should be wondering why non-fanatical Muslims living in the West aren't the loudest condemners of such abuse of their religion elsewhere.

It's not perfectly fair to demand more policing of Islam by non-fanatical Muslims, any more than any other non-fanatic of any religious or irreligious stripe. But it is the way out: to demand that decent Muslims take a side in this civil war within Islam and fight the good fight.

Wow, it didn't take long for an example of Godwin's law to appear.

<link>

I find small solace in Muslims who abhor the rancor and hide in the shadows. It reminds me of the trials of Sir Thomas More by Henry VIII: silence is consent.

Whether tacit or implied, "consent" by the silent majority portends the end of that majority.

This is incredible. Just imagine there are some sort of species out there that have some sort of communication skills but just don’t understand the world or what is wrong and right but is just to eager to KILL ...... Imagine that....

Thanks for the link to Godwin's Law. I didn't know one existed but it's great.

Apples & Oranges.

Chamberlain's "negotiations" with Hitler had to do with committing nations to total war, honoring (or not, as it turned out) commitments to allies, and how to deal with an first tier military power which could (and did) directly threaten Britain's very existence. It did not have to do with a individual citizen being incarcerated for the purpose of political showboating by a third-tier power of no threat to any one but it's own people (and those well-meaning but foolish people who expose themselves to the risk by trying to have a little adventure and do some good in the world, like Ms. Gibbons).

In the first instance, your goals are protecting national sovereignty, preventing world calamity, maintaining the world order (or even buying time to arm your nation for the inevitable conflict) etc. -- Goals that Chamberlain pretty completely failed to achieve (no argument there). But in the second instance, your goal is to extract your silly, unfortunate citizen from the mess she's landed herself in. If they have to act like there were "grave and serious" crimes committed and as though the thugs running the place are legitimate world leaders to do this, then so be it -- nobody's going to remember this after a few news cycles anyway...Again, the Brits did right....

"those who can't remember history are doomed to repeat it"

i betcha mine is better known, and accepted.

was godwin a holocaust denier, or something?

anyway, everyone from bush to hillary to the US Olympic committee has had nazi-istic motives ascribed to them, so i would agree the comparision is likely to be overused

as part of the munich pact, chamberlain ceded the sudatenland (part of czechoslovakia) to hitler in return for a promise that germany and england would never attack each other.

unsurprisingly, the leaders of czechoslovakia were given no say in the carving up of their nation by chamberlain.

when hitler continued bite off chunks of europe, even though they never attacked england, the british felt "forced" to declare war on germany for the continued agression.

there are many books which deconstruct this.

here's one

*stabill

If the majority of Moslems never showed their disapproval about that stuff, well it's because of their education. Children were ordered to keep silent when the elders talked. Shouldered by your government, their totalitarian leaders oppressed them savagely whenever they tried to even whisper their dissatisfactions. Now things are changing in some Countries, though they are still not enough.