Janet Albrechtsen, yawn, South Park redux, and a bit of even handed militant atheism ...

(Above: offered only for the purpose of irritating any stray militant Christian).

Like a dinosaur lurching from a primeval swamp, roaring like a rather dull 2D CGI from an old Spielberg movie, Janet Albrechtsen has at last discovered that she loves South Park.

When all but rusted-on fans think the show has settled into a grove and become a trifle sedate in its attempts to offend everyone - frequently accompanied by a saccharin moral at the end of the show in quintessential American sitcom style - Albrechtsen has come to the belated conclusion - 200 episodes down the track, long after everyone else has gone to bed - that the US animated sitcom is biting, funny, insurgent humour that rips into everyone and every group.

Surely this means South Park is nearing the end of its run. If it's lost the capacity to alienate and offend Janet Albrechtsen, then what the fuck is the point of it? How long can you be an adolescent, trying to mix the insights of Mad magazine with the subtlety and nuance of Thunderbirds Are Go, and then end up with the undying loyalty and devotion of a Janet Albrechtsen? Eek, head to the nearest casino and cash in the wildly offensive chips, and perhaps settle for a yard glass of margaritas ...

Yep, the mammoth of critical thought has suddenly discovered in May that there was a fuss back in April and in South Park gag makes a mockery of freedom of expression, she trawls through the talking points with such a convincing thoroughness that you have to conclude she's either a dedicated swot using a cheat sheet, or she's just an automaton programmed to recite glib arguments from a conservative PowerPoint presentation.

The glibbest is this one:

Parker and Stone made legitimate fun of the claim for special treatment by some Muslims. Remember that the claim is not for an equal playing field. Those who want Mohammed fenced off often have no qualms about launching assaults on Christianity. That hypocrisy caught the attention of the guys at South Park. And for that they ought to be supported, not suppressed.

Oh Jesus, it's the long suffering Christians regularly assaulted routine yet again, while the Muslims are spared, and it's so unfair. Cue crocodile tears.

Sweet Jesus, spare me, or perhaps better, tell me exactly who "those" are who are amongst the "those who want" fifth columnists who regularly assault Christianity but want Mohammed fenced off.

What devoted atheist likes to ring off any religion? Could it be Christopher Hitchens? No, here he is in Slate in 2006 making The case for mocking religion:

Islam makes very large claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet—who was only another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent.

Could it be that other militant atheist Richard Dawkins who routinely upsets conservatives? Nope, here he is in Times Online in a crusade of an intellectual kind: Professor Richard Dawkins wants to convert Islamic world to evolution. Well good luck with that - try converting a southern Baptist who voted regularly and with piety for George W. Bush, and the maintenance of creationism as a way of life. Which leaves dinosaurs like Albrechtsen in a bit of a pickle or a mugwump swamp.

Could it be Bill Maher? Hardly ...

Here's the unexamined assumption. Much of the ignorance, superstition, prejudice against women, anti-gay hostility and desire to censor is shared equally between Islamic and Christian fundamentalists. In the end, there's not much difference between a twit like Sarah Palin and a twittish conservative Islamic politician.

But of course Albrechtsen desperately wants to blame liberals for all the problems, conveniently forgetting that Glenn Beck is a Mormon and that Jesus is from Missouri.

They (Parker and Stone) also ripped into the West's cultural weakness, the supine appeasement that flows from self-imposed censorship. If we were to plot a graph representing how we defend freedom of expression, the line is heading south towards self-censorship. Each time we step down from defending Western values such as freedom of expression, our retreat signals a weary acceptance that Islamic rules apply by default.

But hang on, South Park is now an aging cartoon desperately trying to assert continuing relevance, a bit like The Simpsons continuing long after it reached its use-by debate (even if for the first ten series it was one of the best shows going around).

Is this the best we've got to hang on to regarding freedom of expression, instead of a weary acceptance that Islamic rules apply by default?

What about Miranda the Devine's rage at the greenie message in Avatar in Hit by the leftie sledgehammer? Should we be agitated by her intolerance and rage?

I keed, I keed. How can we defend blue people?

Well as usual Albrechtsen starts hot out of the blocks and then begins to falter:

Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris suggested May 20 should be "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". What began as a joke - Norris drew the prophet as a box of pasta, a tea cup and a domino - became a viral campaign to do exactly that in a few weeks.

Uh huh. So let's keep the viral routine keeping on:

Uh huh. Comes the Albrechtsen faltering in the face of humour:

Others are yawning. Just another silly grassfire we should not fuel with debate, they say. But instead of sleepwalking our way towards cultural capitulation, we should debate this.

Debate it? What's to debate in a cartoon? You can either do it, or you can't. What a gherkin.

Discussing the boundaries around free speech is key to defending Western values in a civil society. Start with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". As a cartoon, it was mildly amusing. As a campaign, it's crass and gratuitously offensive. That doesn't mean resorting to the law to ban the idea. Instead, a sophisticated society can condemn and ignore it. As James Taranto wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "We would not endorse or participate in an "Everybody Shout a Racial Slur Day' or an `Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day'."

Oh dear. Condemn it and ignore it, while celebrating the lame South Park. WTF.

The Wall Street Journal. James Taranto. Just another conservative neoliberal git. And entirely lacking in a sensa huma. Just like the righteously indignant Janet Albrechtsen. Suddenly a mildly amusing cartoon somehow becomes a crass and gratuitously offensive campaign, while South Park, a crash and gratuitously offensive cartoon series, is somehow under dire threat.

How can you debate or discuss such things with gherkins?

How on earth could you find a campaign to draw cartoons of Mohammed gratuitously offensive and crass if you think we should all be cutting edge like South Park? After all the original Danish cartoons, which are always evoked in these discussions, are about as cutting edge as a dish cloth and as aesthetically pleasing as a kitchen sponge. While it's nice if dissidents can display the satirical wit of Alexander Pope in iambic pentameter, perhaps in closed couplets, sadly few of us are up to the job.

But should that stop us from aspiring to South Park? Albrechtsen seems to be a tad confused, first suggesting we should leave it to the professionals offering cutting-edge commentary, before then allowing that atheists might be able to swear.

Here she is, showing her benign tolerance:

... defending those who expose, debate and even poke fun at all of our cultural faults and foibles is altogether different. Whether you like it or not, South Park offers cutting-edge commentary on Western culture. Muslims are entitled to adhere to their religious rules. No one is forcing them to draw the prophet Mohammed. But that does not mean Western societies built on freedom of expression must do the same. It's like saying atheists can't take the Lord's name in vain because good Christians choose not to.

Sweet Jesus, thank the lord for that.

There's just one thing wrong with all this. Painting South Park - as in its two hundredth incarnation it runs yet again through familiar tropes and memes, offering up the standard shock and awe routines about all and sundry - as providing cutting edge commentary on Western culture suggests that Albrechtsen needs to get out more, perhaps switch off the Foxtel and partake in cultural life.

Positioning yourself in a permanent attitude of defiant adolescent teenage rebelliousness, replete with fart jokes, doesn't always produce a cutting edge commentary on Western culture. Or any other culture.

Instead down the track the show is likely to end up like The Young Ones. That blast from the past is currently getting an outing on ABC2 and wow is it now of a period. Last night Vyvyan, the medical student, took an attitude to The Good Life.

Vyvyan: [Ripping up the introduction to The Good Life] NO, NO, NO, NO! WE ARE NOT WATCHING THE BLOODY GOOD LIFE! BLOODY, BLOODY, BLOODY! I HATE IT! IT'S SO BLOODY NICE! FELICITY "TREACLE" KENDAL, AND RICHARD "SUGAR FLAVOURED SNOT" BRIERS! WHAT DO THEY DO KNOW? CHOCOLATE BLOODY BUTTON ADS, THAT'S WHAT! THEY'RE NOTHING BUT A COUPLE OF REACTIONARY STEREOTYPES, CONFIRMING THE MYTH THAT EVERYONE IN BRITAIN IS A LOVABLE MIDDLE CLASS ECCENTRIC, AND I! HATE! THEM! (yes, the caps are necessary for effect).

My partner merely looked bewildered. Never seen The Good Life. Didn't have a clue at the rage embedded in Vyvyan's outburst. Hopefully at some point down the track, we'll reach that point about all religions, but it's a faint bloody hope.

Meanwhile, what have we learned from Albrechtsen?

The effect on our culture is chilling. After the South Park controversy, CNN reported that the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art decided that its upcoming Islamic art exhibition would not include any depictions of the prophet Mohammed.

Ho hum. So stand up to them Janet, de-chill. You know, at the least provide a link to a repository of Mohammed images. Here. Perhaps run one of the upmarket artistic images done by earlier Muslim artists in less problematic times:

(The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries by the Persian scholar al-Biruni, here).

Or are you simply giving us an example of your own self-imposed censorship, a weary retreat, because such things are crass and gratuitously offensive?

Well in the usual way, van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are dragged in to round out Albrechtsen's column with a burst of defiance, with the West reasserting itself as a confident culture, capable of defending freedom of expression.

So that South Park can go on its tedious adolescent way?

No, so we can publish atheist cartoons. Phew, after all that Islamic bashing, time to have a go at the Christians:

And here as an aside is a clipping I enjoyed, from the Detroit News, March 25, 1931, as published here.

Atheism's come along a little, but if South Park is its current exemplar, there's still a way to go.