A top official at the Department of Homeland Security rejected the idea that America may be provoking Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-inspired attacks domestically, by holding events like last months “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest in Garland, Texas.
The House Homeland Security Committee held a Wednesday morning hearing on that attack, in which both attackers were killed. During the hearing Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., argued that it was somewhat understandable that Muslims might be offended by the contest, and indicated that maybe the contest was a bad idea.
“I would get upset if someone drew cartoons of Jesus or called Mary a slut. I mean, that’s just my thing,” Richmond said.
“Are we inciting some of this with our, or some people’s, hatred towards their religion and other things?” he asked. “I mean, are we fueling some of this fire?”
Francis Taylor, undersecretary for intelligence and analysis at DHS, rejected that premise, and said the cartoon contest alone did not lead to the attack.
“The Constitution of the United States of America and our rights and freedoms something that stands in the way of our enemy’s effort to create a global caliphate,” he said. “So, I don’t think any one event fuels this. I think it’s coming at our system of government, our freedoms.”
Richmond asked Taylor if DHS sees more people following the Islamic State after events like the one in Texas, and Taylor admitted this does happen.
“But again, in America, those kinds of conversations happen every day, as a part of our constitutional rights in this country,” Taylor added. “And so, saying that we should stop doing something here would cause them to stop doing it there, they’ll find somewhere else to look for a reason to … attack America.”
Richmond indicated he saw the attack as one that could have been prevented if the cartoon contest had been called off. He also likened it to walking down a dark, dangerous street at night, something that should be avoided as a way of staying out of trouble.
“I just don’t think that we’re having that honest conversation when we’re talking about young people, we’re talking about angry people, we’re talking about people who feel picked on,” he said.
“There are some words that would trigger a response, but you have the absolute First Amendment right to say it, and then it’s up to me whether I want to exercise my discipline, or hit you in the mouth,” he added. “So the question becomes, how often are we going to get hit in the mouth before we realize that we may be playing into it unnecessarily by just being callous and cruel, I think in some instances.”
