Those cartoons ... ...

The twelve Mohammed cartoons published in a Danish newspaper have sure knocked about a wasp nest. I have sat and watched footage of muslims swearing death to any country that dare publish those cartoons. I have read a range of views around the fracas, and I think have come to some sort of position.

What is the key conflict here? It seems to be the right of free speech versus the demand to censor anything that may cause offense to a major religious group (Islam).

Is it newsworthy? Are the cartoons worth reprinting? Is this a topic worth discussing in the country's national newspapers? Yes. It was not news when the cartoons were first published. It became news when large crowds began protesting and burning down embassies because of it. It became bigger news when other papers, including the Dominion Post, published the cartoons and protests and trade sanction threats were sparked across the Arab world, and some western countries too.

Are the cartoons offensive? Yes. Oh sure, not to me. Most aren't even satire. Two even mock the newspaper for trying to stir up controversy. But apparently any picture of Mohammed is offensive - even more than a picture of Allah would be. So I suppose even a beautiful Rembrandt of Mohammed would be offensive to Muslims.

A sub-issue is hypocrisy. The NZ Herald chose not to publish the cartoons because "well, we could, but we don't want to offend people just because we can". That exposes double-standards. In the past the Herald has delighted publishing pictures offensive to Christians, and cartoons offensive to politicians and nation states, in part to be provocative and sell more papers. The refusal to print the cartoons (a valid news story) is a departure from form.

Are the protesting muslims being hypocritical, when their state-controlled media outlets have published cartoons decrying and mocking Israel and western nations? Well, no, because they don't believe in free speech. If they did, then it would be hypocrisy. But in their worldview, Islam is absolute. It overrides anything it may come up against. Islam is also violent, in part because it is usually linked with the powers of state like enforcement and warfare (as Christianity once was), but also because Islam/Peace is gained through the unimpeded spread of Mohammed's teachings through the world - and this end seems to justify any means.

As I believe in freedom of speech, I support my right to post these opinions, the right for newspapers to publish cartoons that are offensive to a religous group (though the question should always be asked: is this wise, sensitive or appropriate?), and the right for Muslims to protest down Queen Street against the cartoons.

So we have an immovable, inarguable, un-'reason'-able force (the teachings of Islam) ramming against a treasure of the free world: the freedom of speech. Through a wider lens, it is one culture and worldview demanding that another culture and worldview obey its rules, or suffer the consequences. There is no space for tolerance here, because to exist, tolerance must be shared. While secular nations allow tolerance, moslem nations do not if something is contrary to any part of Islam.

So as our country is not an Islamic state, New Zealand must actively reject this attack on freedom of speech, a fundamental tenet of our society. Publish and be damned.