In this debate, I take the viewpoint of the ACLU who has, in the past, defended the Ku Klux Klan. There is a fine line between a form of speech that muzzles debate and an actual debate itself. Clearly, a cartoon in newsprint is not a form of speech that muzzles the speech of others.
I don't think I read anything celebratory in the diaries of those critical of Muslims yesterday. Instead, it seemed as though diarists were choosing to emphasize the importance of free speech, in this instance, over the sensibilities of a religious group. Freedom of speech is basically a safeguard for the rights of the individual so that a powerful consensus (i.e. almost all religions) will not dictate thought to individuals. It was quite telling that many religious leaders of all the world's religions (and even governments) condemned the cartoons. Their power, after all, comes from the consensus that surrounds a belief system.
Agreed, I would have watched my words more carefully if I had written this for a diary. On the other hand, it is of little significance to my argument - I was focusing on Jyllandsposten rather than on individual cartoonists.
I don't think I read anything celebratory
I don't understand what you read as me claiming so.
Freedom of speech is basically a safeguard for the rights of the individual so that a powerful consensus (i.e. almost all religions) will not dictate thought to individuals.
In Denmark, there was and is no powerful Islamist consensus. Also, I stated at the beginning that I think it is permissible but not commendable to post and re-post this stuff, and later that it is of no real significance that Muslim governments make demands our states to not permit such stuff as long as our states won't follow suit, so please don't argue against a position I didn't held and a threat that does not exist. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I do agree though that the decision to publish these cartoons in the first place was not commendable, but when this leads to violent behaviour you have to take a firm stance against it, both the specific death threats issued and the upsurge of violence in general.
Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
Another such militant Islamist group operating from Copenhagen, Denmark is the trans-national Hizb ut-Tahrir (Liberation Party). This is what the BBC article says about this group:
The party has expressed support of suicide bombings in Israel. It denounces Western governments and what it sees as their lackey regimes in the Middle East. And Hizb Ut Tahrir is calling on Muslims in Britain to decide whether their loyalty lies with this country or with God.
But let me emphasise that this is a small group and is by no means representing the majority of Muslims in Europe or in the World at large. As I have mentioned before this is extremist views and not the views of the majority of moderate Muslims. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
I only observed that the continuing focus on the militant islam within the world reflects badly on the majority of the Muslim community. And the larger group in the Netherlands feels unconformtable with that - and rightly so. There's no reason whatsoever for them to act repenting. For them, the Muslim millitants have upped the scales to prove they're honourable, hard working citizens - while many are already in an underdog position.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining how someone could think narrow enough to assume that with one bad apple the entire basket has gone wrong. People have forgotten their own (Christian) history.
But I'll try. It is the majority of Muslim communities that feels pressurised to outshine even better than before to a society that is suspicious of the faith the Muslims adhere because of increasing examples of intolerant and militant Islam interpretations. I don't think I can answer it in any other way.
I simply believe that our point of emphasis should not be on the coercive power of cultural elites to decide what should be published or not. Especially in a private commercial organ such as a media newspaper which is susceptible to all sorts of pressures.
Again, this is a point of emphasis. I simply think we should be much, much more concerned about an individual right rather than the collective offense.
