Walking on eggshells

i think it reflects extremists and not everyday muslims, but yes the response is frightening. ty for flagging it. Juliet

This is what one commentator says: "Freedom of speech has its limits when it concerns others...How would it feel if Jesus Christ was the one insulted instead? " Ignoring the mindless fucking stupidity of that opening clause, I was struck by how similar the second bit is to what some other spazz said about the Jerry Springer Musical. Something along the lines of, 'They'd never do this if it insulted the Muslim religion'. Makes you want to bash their brainless heads together.

The whole thing's totally retarded. I despair that in the 21st century we're forced to put up with such angry superstitious tripe. The hate on display depresses the hell out of me. It just shows that a significant proportion of human beings are utter, utter cretins. What's wrong with people just chilling out and being nice to each other? Does nobody get it?

I have also been shaken by this. It just seems so utterly ludicrous. I'm sure the Muslim reactionary reaction (!) can be traced back through any number of examples of Western insensitivity, ignorance and prejudice but, for fuck's sake, even the fact that someone - thousands of people - went to the trouble of protesting in the street against the entirity of Denmark and all Denmark-made products because one second-rate political satirist drew an ill-judged cartoon is a complete joke. And then, that they slated Germany and France for reprinting the cartoon and saying - hey c'mon guys, freedom of speech and all that. At least you can make jokes about Christianity - at least in my household. We have a photo of me and my friends on top of a mountain in Ireland, pretending to be crucified. It's in horrible taste and I love it. I just don't get it. That's the worst bit. I realise that this is the point where I understand that the Muslims have an entirely different civilisation and, at this point, I feel totally incapable of comprehending it.

But there's angry and then there's death threats, aren't there? I'd be angry if the Guardian published a picture of me with smell lines coming off me that said 'Tim Is A Stinky Bum' but I wouldn't threaten to kill anyone. And if you can't see that those two situations are almost exactly equivocal, then you lose, sir.

I don't see how any muslim can reasonably expect a non-musilm to abide by islamic law. Nobody riots when I eat bacon. They can point out that is is very offensice and ask the newspapers to stop, which will have a limited effect at best, or they can get angry, which will be completely counter-productive.

Yeah well, the bacon thing was a bit of a silly analogy, but the point was that the Danes do not live under islamic law and do not have to pay it the slightest heed. Similarly, nobody has to read a newspaper they don't want to. Yes, it was a mean and offensive thing to print the cartoons, but being mean and nasty about different religions is hardly an unnusual activity, it's what most of them seem to spend their time doing to each other, the most unnusual thing about this is that it was printed by a secular press. I am deeply and emotionally attached to the idea of freedom of speech, it's probably the greatest cultural advance we've ever had. As such I am grudgingly proud of the press that has pointedly reprinted the cartoons, it might not be wise, it was certainly not sensitive, but it is necessary. Boycotts and peacful protests are, of course, the correct response. What's scary is the extent of the incorrect responses.

Harry Kerdean Scary, of course it is, we’re probably on the brink of a World War and you have prats in the media deeming this sort of thing as okay. Power without responsibility, freedom of speech my anatomy. It’s nasty and spiteful and maybe if people treated others how they would expect to be treated these situations wouldn’t arise. It’s about respect. Doesn’t anyone in our non religious capitalist society get that. The Muslims touchy? Were the Jews and other minorities portrayed in a similar mocking fashion in the run up to World War Two in Nazi Germany touchy? Jerry Springer the Opera? Try Jesus Christ indulging in sexual relations with a choirboy, how would that cartoon depiction go down? As for how people would personally respond, ie if the Guardian said something about them, (a left wing paper, the papers across Europe who’ve printed these images happen to be right wing), it seems you expect these people to appreciate you wouldn’t react that way yet you don’t appreciate they will react differently. What about if it was a depiction of your mother, would you be angry then? Tell me are the headlines declaring Gypsies as scum equally okay through freedom of speech? Actually in the UK it seems this discriminations completely acceptable, despite them dying in their hundreds of thousands in the holocaust, what with the protests about them setting camp up near you. Maybe you think Hitler had the right answer to that particular problem. So instead we’ll say a depiction of a black man raping your kids and putting them on drugs. Ooh is that touchy, obviously in the UK saying that about everyday blacks isn’t the vogue. Though it was as late as the seventies. And last but not least, lets all make moral judgements from the comfort of our front rooms, I mean it’s not like the British troops based in the Middle East will probably bear the brunt of this is it? Seeing as they're the most visible Westerners out there. The war may well be illegal but for editors to commission pieces of work that may make an already out of hand volatile situation even worse is beyond irresponsibilty or disgust. Yeah and he probably lives in a big house well away from these problems and is never affected by real life in any way.

"Try Jesus Christ indulging in sexual relations with a choirboy, how would that cartoon depiction go down?" In a similar way to how this has gone down, except with a slightly smaller group of thuggish idiots over-reacting. The phrase ""Freedom of speech has its limits..." is ten times as offensive to the whole of mankind as any kind of religious imagery.

Harry Kerdean Freedom of speech having limits? Of course it shouldn't, as long as used in an adult fashion, and not one that needs to start hate. Words can hurt as much as any violence and carry a much longer effect on individuals. Hey maybe we should feel better for not using actual violence. Or maybe that sort of stuff comes from people who've never been on the recieving end. maybe if they did they'd see things in a different light. Personally I feel that insulting people should carry the same right to defend yourself as attacking someone, the hurt after all is the same. Or would that be to barbaric. The right of freedom of speech wasn't a long for right with the implication to insult and hurt others, surely even Daily mail readers understand that to a certain extent.

Interestingly the cartoons were commisioned for an article (back in september) about artists being bullied into self censorship by threats of violence by muslims. here for anyone who's interested (the cartoons not the article) http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698 Only a couple of them are obviously offensive. Only one of them is funny. Considering the context in which they were created, they seem rather harmless.

http://www.freewebs.com/michaeljamestreacy/index.htm Comparing Gypsies to scum is unnacceptable and does not make literal sense. Gypsies are a sub-culture of modern humanity: ethnic minorities in all the countries they inhabit, but still genetically closer to you and I, than members of an isolated troop of chimpanzees, on an isolated mountainside, in an obscure, isolated, central African country. Scum is the gunk that settles on the top of your boiled stewing meat. You must wash off this scum before you add the meat to your casserole. If you don't wash it off, then you must be an idle baskit or else have no cooking skills. Depicting Christ defiling choir boys? Considering the conduct of some contemporary men-of-cloth, this depiction is acceptable in highlighting the despictable acts of some christian clergy.... They say they'll be there, at heaven's gate: the ones who pray and congregate. If we do the same, we'll be at the feast but how to explain a paedophile priest? Lampooning the prophet Mohamed in a cartoon because of the antics of some of his more-extreme devotees??? Quite acceptable in any radical, 21st century thinking.

"The phrase 'freedom of speech has its limits' might be unpalatable but it's also true." In practical terms, yes. As a principle, the idea doesn't even make sense. It's an absolute. There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. There's no 'limited freedom of speech', or 'freedom of speech within certain boundaries'.

Imagine there is this fellow who has been going to this appointed rock in the desert prostrating and praying to it all his life. He calls it his sacred stone and it is plain to see that over that period of time he built up a heavy emotional investment in this. Imagine his forefathers having done the same for centuries. Now, one day, I walk by and for reasons of my own, I decide to pee on it. When he protests angrily, I say well.. What is the problem? It is only a rock after all, just like all the other non-special rocks around here and anyway, I tend to pee on them all and it is my right to pee on any I choose. Would you say that at the very least, this could be construed as a mark of insensitivity, disrespect and possibly of deep provocation? When we see people react en masse in a way that we don't understand it is easy to write them off as fools.... but surely it makes sense to probe a little bit deeper, not necessarily to agree with the behaviour but to try and understand where it is coming from. From inception, I believe that Islam has decried the use of images to represent their holy Prophets and Allah... I was struck (and reminded) of this, this time last year when I visit the big Mosque in Bahrain and had a tour and talk. In a Mosque it it is all abstract and geometrical forms and I was told they are not allowed represention of any animals let alone any human forms... for all that they are beautiful and calming places (though personally and sadly I find quite a few of the interpretations incompatible with moden 21st century living). Islamic Art for any of you that have come across it in tiling, tapestries, motifs etc is beautiful and inspiring, perhaps because they have had to work within these restrictions. So this not depicting the image of Mohammed is a centuries laden big thing for Moslems let alone in an insulting way and in times when many moderate Moslems have been made to feel insecure due to the actions of their extremists. The offence and anger should be understandable in that context. We should of course not lump the words and actions of extremists with the majority, who though angered, would not proclaim they want violent ''revenge'. That Said, I still feel there is something to be said for 'free speech' and whilst we all know it does not truly exists, it is still is better expressed in parts of the West than in many other other places in the World. It is the only cause I would be prepared to die for, even to maintain the form we have. I think it is right that we should always be probing the boundaries of whatever freedoms there are, painful though that may be sometimes.

Usually the prophet Mohammed is seen as too sacred to be pictured, so you can see why it caused the fuss. Seeing placards on TV saying 'Free Speach die in Hell' and 'Behead those against Islam' was shocking, and scary, but I suppose we have to remember that the cameras went where the action was. I saw a comedian once say that the news, when depicting muslims, always find the scariest, craziest, most fervant ones, and try and pass this off as the voice of 'Islam'... sort of like passing of the BNP as the voice of White Britain....um... Was scary though, and frustrating, because I suppose, in this country the idea of 'free speach' is as much a core belief as not visually depicting the Prophet Mohammed is in Islam. The 'free speachers' are as fervant as the Islamists. (Both sides think/believe they are 'right'). Scary though. And I cried a bit at it when I was watching Channel 4 news last night. Crying at the news - always a bad sign.

Harry Kerdean "In practical terms, yes. As a principle, the idea doesn't even make sense. It's an absolute. There's either freedom of speech or there isn't. There's no 'limited freedom of speech', or 'freedom of speech within certain boundaries'." In that case there isn't, bobblehat2000 was absolutely right. Trust me I have one of those moody media degrees. My subject was journalism and I've also spent time in quite a few newsrooms. There is no freedom of speech, unless you're prepared for the consequences, ie bankruptcy enormous overhall (BBC). Anything that is not meant to be known doesn't become known. A prime example would be why Tony Blair was going to resign for personal reasons, days of speculation in the media as to the why's yet they all knew. Some even wanted to say why. The media industry is pretty much run for profit, and profit alone, they tell you what they want to tell you, and anything that might upset business is avoided. As for the Muslims over reacting Gary Younge's quote of Steve Bilko, South African black nationalist, in todays Gruniad summed it up, "not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked." Asides the few hundred kicking of in Europe they're mostly in their own counties reacting how they want How many died in World War Two to stand up against racism? Maybe Muslims in that department aren't perfect, but it sure doesn't make it right.

The title of this thread says it all to me: walking on egg shells. I refuse to spend my life trying to second-guess the mental twists and turns of every crackpot self-proclaimed victim on planet earth. And I especially don't care what the Muslims think. They are not the vicitims of anything, other than their own stupidity and bloodthirsty religious beliefs. Muslims routinely call for the extermination of Jews and Christians, but I don't see anyone rioting in the West in protest. In fact, the political correctness kunts give folks like that free housing and benefits so they can puke out their hate on the streets of London and recruit suicide bombers. But let a few cartoons appear in print and the Muslims are outraged. Screw them.

The thugs with the placards in London on Friday are as representative of the Moslem Majority as the BNP are of the English, Welsh and Scots... the words of a Moslem commentator on the BBC yesterday. He was furious that these vocal extremists were once again shown as representing his community.. It was good to see his fury. I just wish it was there as clearly at 911, the bombings in Bali and Madrid, the videod beheadings, the insurgent bombing of Mosques in Iraq, July 7th etc all these perpetrated in the name of his religion. If I was a Moslem I know what would cause more 'offence' to my sensibilities. As far as I am concerned, the Moslems have to take a lead in dealing with their extremists.... They have allowed their agenda to be hijacked... and if they do not wish to be identified with Al Mahajaroun and that lot they need to make every effort at distancing themselves in a manner that will convince the rest of us that they really mean it...

Is this offensive to some? http://www.thebricktestament.com/books/index.html Are we likely to see an Islamic version anytime soon? I particularly like the Holy Ghost. And Moses has only 8 knobbly Commandments.

in repsonse to 1legspider, what do you do to convince us you don't sympathise with the BNP? this is not a personal attack - but your line about muslims interests me. Are there any members who are muslim who would be willing to share their views on this debate? Juliet

i don't think the majority of muslims are bin Laden sympathisers either, that's the point, 1leg isn't being asked to justify it but he is suggesting that muslims ought to. It really wasn't a personal attack on 1leg, just a response to his comment, however this pillow case thing may warrant further investigation :) Juliet

your ethnocentric views sadden me. if any member on this site is muslim i doubt they would want to join this debate. Juliet

Harry Kerdean Um Mark sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the Islamic teachings also teach that you should react to insult with kindness and forgiveness. As it happens it's the way in pretty much every religeon, you just get a handful of loonies who take things out of context, oh and Buddhisms not a religeon it's a way of life. Also on men thinking they're superior to women, that must make the UK about fifty years behind Islam, that's if you ignore the fact that women are still paid considerably less in the workplace. So if we'd carried out your suggestion of sticking them all on a desert island none of us would be here. Or do we just conveniently forget our country's past, like we usually do in these circumstances. I agree with Juliet, and I'm not saying the reaction in the Middle East is right either. But on the other hand it must be nice to hold something so sacred you'd do anything for it. Look at Nelson Mandella, one of the most respected men in the world, and rightly so. Just think not that long ago you'd have been describing him in the same way methinks. oh and I also suggest you re-examine your knowledge of Ghandi, he didn't get the British Empire out of India with meditation, and I'm not sure he was even a Bhudist was he? I'll get back in a second after googling it with any corrections and clarifications.

Harry Kerdean okay he was a bhuddist, but the rest of what I said was right.

Harry Kerdean "It appears my feeble attempt at satire didn’t go down too well" Is that a Danish expression?

"Jack's position is, quite frankly, so bizarrely illogical that it almost qualifies religious position in itself...." 1) It isn't 'my' position, and 2) you're being stupid. When people talk about 'freedom of speech' as a principle that they believe in, they're talking about the right of individual to decide whether or not to express their views. As in, there shouldn't be laws in place to decide whether or not they're allowed to say that. Either you believe in this right, or you don't. If you only believe people should only be allowed to express certain views at certain times - however wide you set those boundaries - you don't believe in their right to freedom of speech. Now obviously, there are situations where I choose not to express my views because it might be inappropriate or tactless, and this could be said to restrict my freedom of speech in a practical sense, but the question is, do *I* have the right to decide, or does the state decide for me? It isn't a 'by degrees' thing. It also isn't the 'sacred cow' that Muslim spokespersons, in their effort to draw an analogy, seem to think it is. I'm sure lots of people don't believe in it. I do, partly because if you start dictating what people can and can't say, then you'll never know what they're thinking, and this kind of bottling up leads to means of expression other than speech. How did you get so muddled up? "As far as I’m concerned, any religious doctrine that places females in a subordinate role is not worth the parchment it’s illuminated on." That's Christianity out as well, really, isn't it? I don't see the point in trying to decide whether or not Islam 'allows' violence. A person with violent or hateful inclinations can always find justification in the nearest Holy Book, whatever contradictory evidence there also may be in it.

On a purely descriptive level, it's true we have freedom of speech in the sense that we can say what we like whenever we like, but it's untrue that we have freedom from the consequences of our speech. Jon, if you enter a police station, approach the front desk and inform the person on duty, 'Excuse me, but I have just been bum raped,' and go on to report an offence, only to admit that you were 'just teasing' later on, then you could be punished under law for wasting police time. Would you support freedom of speech in that instance? Well, clearly you were free to say what you wanted, but you weren't exempt from consequences. It's like, I think anyone who expresses an opinion to the effect that the Guardian Review's Posy Simmons is 'good' ought to have their teeth chiselled from their gums. They're free to express such an opinion, but they're not free from the consequences of their stupid, stupid opinions. And now they have no teeth, the scoundrels.

ON Sunday I watched Wolf Blitzer interview the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. on CNN. Blitzer showed several cartoons which had appeared in Saudi newspapers within the last few months, all of them viciously anti-Semitic. One depicted Jews killing babies and drinking their blood. There is nothing new or unusual about such depictions in the Muslim world. This is routine and has been so for many years. The Saudi Ambassador said he found the images offensive and "if I were in charge of that newspaper I would never have printed them." Wonderful. I will stipulate that the Ambassador probably does not own or run those papers, though we can't be sure of that; however, Saudi Arabia is a totalitarian police state. Nothing happens without at least the tacit approval or encouragement of the government. The same is true in Syria etc. Now perhaps the rioters are sufficiently ignorant that they believe Denmark is likewise a police state where the media is run by the government. Many of them probably are that ignorant, being bought up in a police state. The Arabs can print all the anti-Semitic crap they want for all I care--in their own country of course. Everyone already knows they want to exterminate the Jews and finish the job Hitler started. This is not news. The President of Iran, for example, reiterates this goal every chance he gets. That's why no one reacts to their bollocks when it takes place in their own country. Now there are Muslims on the streets of Britain threatening beheadings, murder, terrorists attacks, and the like. The police do nothing.

It should be obvious, but angry people who meet up with other angry people to go and express their anger are likely to get carried away and say stupid things that they then (like that lad from Bedford) later regret. This is no more true of islam than it is of the animal rights movement, in fact the animal rights movement scares me a lot more. Too much credence can be given to images of the weekend's protestors, you see the worst of it, and what there is is seriously dilluted by monday morning. The fact that the ideal of free speech doesn't quite work so well in practice should be equally obvioous. I'm inclined to think the way Rockitnite does, that we do have a right to say what we like, but we are not free from the responsibilities of saying it. But it's a thin argument at best. However you look at it, the right to safely express your opinions should be rated very highly indeed. To argue a more complex point, I do not believe what has happened here is as simple as "putting other people in physical danger by expressing those opinions." There are people who's opinions hold a lot of weight, but few of them are Danish cartoonists. A better phrase might be "putting yourself and others in physical danger by recklessly enraging lunatics" and though it is reckless and bloody insensitive it is exactly the sort of thing that must not be censored. The alternative is to be bullied into self censorship by a strong body of opinion, which is unacceptable.

I think, if I've understood the story correctly, that we're very much falling into a trap by taking this debate to be one about the merits of free speech, or of 'Western Liberal Democracy' versus 'Islam'. A group of radical Danish Imams took a dossier of cartoons, including some cartoons that were not published by the newspaper, on a tour of Syria and Egypt. The cartoons were published in September. It's taken that long for the outrage to work its way back round. It strikes me that, if we didn't have an automatic habit of seeing Islam as 'other' or foreign, we'd be able to see this as more a debate about the right of a small number to dictate the policies of governments that effect us all. Part of the purpose of agitation like this is to underline the separation between a version of Islam and the rest of people in European countries. Treating this as an example of unreasonable and confrontational Islam, unable to understand the 'western ways' of liberal democracy is wrong. Those who live in countries with Islamic majorities may be unable to understand why someone would be allowed to print such pictures. Those who live in European countries are making a larger point, by choosing a situation where a line has been crossed, they are using this to call into question all of the assumptions made by European Countries about Islam. I don't see it as anything more than a debate about extremism. You find something where you know you have a fair chance of receiving sympathy from your target group. You raise funds and awareness. You plan and organise. You arrange an event or events that give you maximum opportunity of spreading your message. You aim to give the idea that everyone in your target is on your side and you speak for them. If you are very clever, you point out a problem and refuse to back down, leaving governments to maneuver in the open, making them behave in the way you are accusing them of behaving. In the end, the initial stimulus is almost forgotten, as it provides a lever to get all of the above things to happen, without any necessary weight of its own. Problems like this are OUR problems, to retreat into sides plays into the hands of extremists. If thinking becomes polarised like that, people in the middle are given no choice but to run to one extreme or the other. The issue here is the actual way that this situation has come about. It's not about dry semantic arguments. It only serves those who see ideals over practicalities, who see ideas as more important than people, to discuss these events at the level of global truths or inalienable rights. Cheers, Mark Brown, Editor (on leave), www.ABCtales.com

on a lighter note, this must be contender for quote of the week (from a captain in the Danish contingent in Iraq, after 5,000 protesters rallied and burnt Danish flags) "...we might not be as popular as we have been as a result of the Prophet Muhammad drawings," http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Prophet_Drawings_Sadr.html

As I understand it the thing came about, like all the best things come about, by cock-up. The Danish imans had been protesting for a while and got nowhere, it was picked up a few extremist groups but again, nobody really cared. Then secular egyptian politicians latched on to it because it was a gift for painting themselves as defenders of islam. I doubt they foresaw how much the idea of censorship offends the european sensibility. Then of course it took a life of it's own. Some particuarly unpleasant people have even created far more offensive (and not nearly as well drawn) cartoons and have been passing them off as the Danish cartoons to further stir things up. It ought to be pointed out that even in the east, violent protestors are still in the overwhelming minority.

I saw a Tony Parsons column that read 'If they want an Islamic country. They should go and live in one'. There is a great schism between the secular-capitalist west and Islamic theocracies of the middle east. People dressing up as suicide bombers and having banners proclaiming vulgar statements about beheading is deeply offensive. It will only fuel people like the far right into gaining a foothold in this country and that would be really shit.

in response to Mark, your comments make a lot of sense. Watching newsnight last night where they had invited an extremist 'Iman chowdy???' on to the programme amongst politicians both British and British Muslim, he came across as the arrogant, pathetic extremist that he is. His arguments were laughable and the other guests all found his comments inflammatory and not grounded in the Koran, or Islam. As Mark says: This is all our problem - we must not knee jerk react - there are many more of us in the middle than on either extreme. Juliet

I agree with Mark that this shouldn't really be a debate about free speech vs. Islam. As usual, I've gone off at a tangent. "Jon, if you enter a police station, approach the front desk and inform the person on duty, 'Excuse me, but I have just been bum raped,' and go on to report an offence, only to admit that you were 'just teasing' later on, then you could be punished under law for wasting police time." Tim, you have made a complete mess of everything, by using, as your example, one of those annoying instances where words aren't just words, but actions. I remember having whole bloody seminars about this stuff, and getting a headache. It's like a promise. When you promise someone something, you aren't just expressing yourself, you are doing something else as well. The same is true of incitement to murder. Normally, the difference between having freedom of speech and freedom of action is like the difference between you *saying* that anyone who thinks the Guardian Review's Posy Simmons is 'good' ought to have their teeth chiselled from their gums, and actually taking the aforementioned instrument to their filthy cakeholes. *But* if you start ordering various people to do it, in all sincerity, then you're somewhere in between, and I think that's where reasonable steps might be taken to stop you. I suppose you could argue that, as all words can carry influence, they all, by degrees, translate into action. But 'freedom of speech' means, and has always meant, supporting to the hilt people's right to say, "I think that..." and "This *should* happen..." by whatever method (direct speech, writing, drawing...) if they so please, rather than their right to use their mouth and vocal chords to whatever effect they can turn them. That means that if I *do* choose to say something tactless, you defend me from violent repurcussions, but not from someone else saying I'm a twat. If I report a false crime, I'm clearly taking an action other than speaking, and you don't have to defend me from the injurious consequences of that. To apply it to this situation: I think the cartoonist and newspapers should have the right to publish those pictures if they want, even though I think it was a stupid idea. I think Muslims have a right to be deeply offended, and say what they like about the Danish, even if most of the views we've been hearing from the extremists are stupid. And I think we've got the right to say they're stupid. But, of course, no one has the right to take violent action against the other, which includes asking/ordering others to kill them. I presume Bobblehat disagrees with me, and feels there should be definite rules in place to stop people expressing stupid views that could potentially spark trouble, but I see that as one of those slippery slopes that could lead to the kind of extreme political correctness a lot of people think is already in place.

Harry Kerdean Sadly human nature often decrees that taunting can often make the most reasonable person snap. Words can also be as damaging as any physical violence, so maybe it's a little self fullfilling prophecy ie you tell a child enough how bad/useless it is the child will often grow up like that. If you treat someone like an outsider or an animal that is how they will act, probably a major factor in social exclusion. People should have freedom of speach, it was a long and hard fought right, but surely not meant for this. Violence, as much as we're loath to admit it, is very much a part of mankind, even if in the West we hide it better. After all, the inter-net, which we're all using now, wouldn't be here otherwise, much like most technical advances throughout history. Although possibly irrelvent, my wife's nan, who lived in Israel for nearly thirty years told me the biggest problem with sorting out the problems comes from the West. We try to put our way of thinking to their problems, and they just don't see it the same. I believe in equality and respect, yes freedom of speech, but surely to an extent a little respect and responsibility. In some European countries, those that have published the cartoons incidently, holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence, and the world is up in arms over Iran's comments on the holocaust. It's right, all these people do is have people running to either side. The publication and reaction were both equally wrong.

i agree with Jack, that was very well put I thought.

Have I told you all lately how much I despise the Wanky Windsors? I'm amazed at my self-restraint with regard to the serious topic here!

Much of this thread reminds me of what happens in America when there is a 'racial incident' like the Rodney King arrest video in the early 90s. The blacks went beserk and rioted all over the country and the whites wrote 'learned and balanced' editorials and think pieces in the press of record using their pens as divining rods to look for ' root causes.' I have nothing against searching for root causes, but when someone is pointing a gun at my head, I'm more interested in how to disarm him than I am in how improper toilet training may have influenced his choice of coping mechanisms. I simply do not accept the 'self-hating guilty white liberal' response that 'they are angry therefore we must have done something wrong because after all we are the oppressors and they are the oppressed.' On a more hopeful note, Abu Shamza just got a seven year sentence from the British courts for inciting to murder. Finally, some good sense prevails. There was a blind cleric in the US who preached much the same thing in New York City in late 80s and early 90s. He was seen as a clownish figure by the press until it turned out that he was behind the truck bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 or thereabouts and later turned out to have had some connection with the 911 crowd. It's probably best to take people like that at their word. As for Communism, I think you've got that one backwards. Far from assuming people were mature, it assumed that human nature was inherently violent and irrational and needed to be controlled down to the last jot to prevent chaos. Communism was supposed to usher in a state of permanent peace and material satisfaction, provided everyone bought into the system. Not everyone did, of course, which gave rise to extreme paranoia among the true believers as they blamed all of their own failings on the treachery of the capitalist swine and the counter-revolutionaries in their own midst. Naturally, there could be no fault among themselves because they were the carriers of the one true faith. Rather sounds a bit like...let's see now .... ummm .... Christianity in its hayday and....uh...oh yeah....Islam today.

Zealots are the problem whatever doctrine they espouse. Nothing to choose between them and everything to fear. They are the same people. You won't find anything about gulags in the Communist Manifesto; Mai Lai in the Declaration of Independence; the Spanish Inquisition in the Bible or 9/11 in the Koran. The things that are done in the name of peace and harmony, you know. Visit my blog: http://whatisthisstrangeplace.blogspot.com/

I have to admit it - my knee jerked. I viewed this situation as a clash of civilisations. Which is a crock of shit. We are being shown the polarised points of view in the media and being invited to choose sides. In fact, there is a substantial middle ground but the problem is that the middle ground gets no coverage, which makes it a difficult choice to make. It's far easier to choose one of the extreme angles we see on most news channels. Joe

I've just heard that a French satirical magazine is going to reproduce the cartoons today. Fearless or foolish? On the subject of the 'Rodney King incident' I'm fairly certain that I and many people on this thread, would 'lose it' if we'd suffered centuries of abuse and abuse from the police on a daily basis. Think of the apatheid system that operated in the deep south, the Ku Klux Klan et al. I'd be fucking armed and ready to shoot.

The question that arises for me from all of this is: What would I do? If I were in a position of legislative power and was approached by an organised interest group who demanded action on the basis of what they considered to be an attack on their beliefs, what would I do? If I were a member of a group, organisation, religion and I received an overall bias against me and my group, would I use a situation where a line had definitely been crossed to drive my point home? If I were the editor of a media outlet and was given the choice of publishing material, in however neutral a form, that I knew would offend certain sections of society would I do it? And, if I did, how would I do it? If I were a reporter, pundit, writer or other figure responsible for coverage of events such as these, how would I cover them? Would I stand up to prevailing 'news' attitudes and try to bring a rounder picture? Would I feel responsible for my contribution to events? If I were in a position to, how would I try to mediate between mutually antagonistic minorities, based on the fact that both sides are unwilling to give ground and both feel that they are protecting sacred positions? I really don't know what I'd do. Cheers, Mark Brown, Editor, www.ABCtales.com

"As far as I know, he's wasn't charged with ordering the murder of specific individuals but he has been jailed for seven years." My understanding was that the incitement charges account for a situation where someone is going beyond 'expressing' themself and is actively encouraging or strongly suggesting to others that they take criminal action. Ordering is a bit strong, but along similar lines. "My position is that there might be some instances where the consequences of allowing complete free speech could be worse that the consequences of restricting it." I'd agree with that.

What I want to know is this: How the fuck did the Muslim protestors "spontaniously" find so many Danish flags? ABC users; how many flags do you posess? And if if you don't posess any, where would you buy them from for use in a so called spontanious outpouring of anger? And this: the Danish flag has a cross - a symbol of christianity. The protestors burn their stocks of this flag (it most be wonderful to be part of a religion in which flags of world are kept in store for such occassions - have you got any?) without considering it might cause hurt to the followers of Christ. Although Mark makes good points above, this whole thing is a stage managed manipulation of the western media (who fall for it every time) and, if you can't see that, I suggest you need to get to your local flag shop asap.

I think it's all a load of crap. Islamic papers regularly print cartoons of Jews eating babies and Westerners doing all sorts of heinous things; are we rioting and trying to burn down the Saudi or Iranian or Syrian embassies because of this? The whole thing is perpetuated by a continual victim mentality, and I find it sublimely ironic that the protesters, *because of* the freedom of speech laws, are allowed to bear placards threatening annhilation of western society and its freedoms of speech. They clearly miss the point, big-time. If they were protesting against the governments in the more hard-core Islamic countries, they'd be tortured. However, having said that, I do agree that there are moments when curtailing of free speech may be in the better interests of society as a whole, although I wouldn't suggest this become common practice. The world's just too volatile right now.