Even Islam, as such, cannot be a problem unless we let the extremist activists redefine the public space. Then it will be a problem we have created.

But we already have. We have let extremist activist conservative newspaper owners define publishing pictures of Muhammed as free speach and opposition to publishing pictures of Muhammed as support of violent oppression of free speach. They did so by creating a controversy in Denmark, and then ignoring to report on non-violent protests against that controversy. When economic measures won fare and square, they used their power to over-rule the outcome by republishing in so many newspapers that the protesters economic measures could not win. Then they defined the conflict as violent by giving ample room to any threat or physical violence used.

Before 2006, depictions of Muhammed was in general not used in history books and such. There was not and is no particular need to create a picture of a man if no one knows what he looks like and the people who think he is important thinks it is wrong to depict him. This was ratehr uncontroversial and if mentioned at all used as a way to introduce the reader to religions, icons and iconoclasm.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se