Article content continued

It wouldn’t surprise me if the pictures were hideous and deliberately offensive

The “offending” images, superimposing Arabic script on naked people, “were meant to represent the conflict between America and Islamic extremists.” Or something. Because past a certain point the pervasive modernist insistence that somebody undress reveals a feebly sublimated obsession with sex. And bad manners.

In response we’re supposed to smile and throw money. Unfortunately this modern art included the “shahada” or “declaration of faith”: “There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.” And while you can dump a crucifix in urine and make out like a bandit, you can’t … you know … do anything that offends a Muslim. Why not?

According to The Times the dispute was perfectly civil and principled. “The gallery rejected calls to remove the paintings on the grounds it wanted visitors to see the works and come to their own conclusions.” But then the artist asked that they be covered as “a respectful solution that enables a debate about freedom of expression versus the perceived right not to be offended,” and the gallery agreed.

According to The Times the dispute was perfectly civil and principled

Perhaps they heard nothing from the crowd who believe insulting Islam is punishable by death. They just got a few courteous notes saying please don’t show anti-religious art and went oh, yeah, it’s not nice. But such notes from Christians usually go straight into the wastebasket. And The Times interviewed Usama Hasan, head of Islamic studies at the British think-tank Quilliam, who opined that “the paintings were not only offensive but blasphemous and sacrilegious. ‘They are really dangerous,’ he said. ‘It’s The Satanic Verses all over again.’ ”