Returning to John’s point about core values, I think he is right in his description of the difference, and that is the problem. The West could not have democratized without getting rid of the idea that churches should vie for power over the state; likewise Muslim countries cannot democratize without recognizing the freedom of others to think that your most deeply held beliefs are absurd and stupid. They may be wrong about that, but they need to be able to think that way and express themselves. The Muslim world’s “core values” need to be modified.

John Mill’s On Liberty should be read by everyone. One of Mill’s key insights was that even false speech, sincerely believed, was of value, because refuting the false speech forces one to understand why one’s belief’s are valid, and can even strengthen the belief attacked in the process of defense. So if someone caricatures Muhammad as a terrorist, which he was not, refute it through history, not repression.

Freedom of speech means exactly that. It also means that people need to grow thicker skins. Freedom of speech means that one is free to say anything, with very few exceptions–e.g., libel. No subject is off-limits, no matter how strongly anyone else feels about it.

This is a basic condition for living in a democracy. It’s called “tolerance”.

While I have sympathy for those whose feelings were offended, I have none for those who call for actions antithetical to the base conditions for democracy.

I suggest you read a bit more about what it’s about, as it’s obvious you’re not clear on the concept.

I am an Egyptian who has been living abroad, in Europe for some time, including 9 months in Denmark.

There is something called mutual respect for others’ beliefs in Scandinavia. Freedom of expression has to stop to a point when you are offensive to others and inciting hatred and racial friction.

The Moslem world is not retarded by asking governments to stop newspapers from encouraging hatred. Anti semetic behaviour lead to the discrimination against Jews earlier and right now there is a similar trend in Europe and the US against Moslems. Something needs to be done to stop that wave now before it escalates.

You think boycotting products means nothing. I disagree. It was boycotting business in South Africa that lead finally to the transformation and abolition of Apartheid. It was the peaceful resistance movement in India that lead to the final end of occupation.

WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING !

Do you know that in a poll 79 % of Danes were in support of the newspaper campaign ? Why ? Do you know that the current government in Denmark is the only right wing government in Europe at the moment ?

I have watched ridiculous TV programs there inciting against Moslems and asking to throw them out because they are scared their numbers are increasing and soon they might represent a majority. How democratic is that ? Being discriminated against based on your religion is not fun or a joke. Many moslems in Europe now are scared for their lives. In Australia they attacked Lebanese people only based on their ethnic origin. Many are not even Moslems. I saw that live on tv ! In the US they attacked an Indian with a turban mistaking him for a Moslem.

Don’t you think the media is important in shaping public opinion ? What made these people start attacking Moslems ? Yes I agree we are to blame partly for the behaviour of terrorists among us. However, this does not give the Danes or others license to accuse us all of ignorance and terrorism. This is discrimination based on belief which is outlawed by international covenants and the international declaration of human rights.

This is not about 12 cartoons .. This is about saying enough is enough. We need to be shown more respect.

Try to live the lives of Moslem people in Europe.. we are not those veiled with a gun .. we are simple people being some what ridiculed and discriminated against based on our origin and belief…

I am in London but will join the boycott as well!

Of course Danes will prefer free speech to market share. Free speech is a core Western value (though so-called “hate speech” laws in various countries nibble at the edges of this).

But the West makes a mistake in simply thinking that Muslims are overly touchy when one of their core values (the role of Mohammed in their own self-definitions) gets poked with a stick.

The reaction was predictable, but that doesn’t mean the cartoons shouldn’t have been published. It just means that actions do have reactions. And when you deal with non-rational factors–as religion is–you often get reactions that are also non-rational, but not irrational.

And you’re right that attempting to pressure the Danish gov’t through economic threats that affect the national economy is a means of exerting improper political control over protected matters.