It is not about freedom of expression....

Submitted by Dr Malek Saleem (United Kingdom), Jan 30, 2006 at 07:48

The publication of the cartoons was not and is certainly not about freedom of expression, as the newspaper desperately tried to explain in order to hide its real agenda.

It the intention was to defy extremists as some say, then why the paper didn't for example depict Bin Laden instead of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)? Why go for someone obviously loved and respected by millions worldwide? And if the intention was to test the limits of freedom of expression and depict the Prophet Muhammed himself, as some others claim, then why wasn't it enough to just depict him in a neutral way without labelling him as a terrorist and viciously try to reinforce common stereotypes about Muslims and Islam (each of the 12 cartoons contained a stereotype message - clear evidence that the whole thing was carefully and viciously planned)?
The intention was clearly to offend, demonize, and spread intolerance and hatred.

It seems that some in the West have lost the plot and can't distinguish between freedom of expression and responsible journalism. Mocking other people's Religion and beliefs, and demonising them is a recipe for social injustices, hatred and violence. May be this was the aim of the newspaper?!

Anyway, as long as people understand that everything has a price tag attached to it, short, medium and long term, and take responsibility for their actions, then that is the rule of the game and it must be accepted by all...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".