Question Author
Alright, gromit, you didn�t actually attack us but you have made all sorts of ad hominem comments like �lacking basic analytical skills� and �believing medieval scripture�, which would raise a chuckle from anyone who has read the things that naomi and I have posted over the years. But never mind; it�s not important.
Mani, you make unwarranted assumptions about the likelihood of the film�s causing anti-Muslim violence. It does not incite such behaviour, nor is there any sign of any having happened. We cannot meekly surrender our cherished freedom of expression because some people think that an unpleasant fellow might incite violence. Our freedoms are more precious than that.
To get back to my question, it seems that the majority (like the majority in the country by all accounts) think that we should not have kept Wilders out. So why did we? Which leads me to my secondary question:
Does the UK establishment kow-tow too much to the sensitivities of official Islam (not, I emphasise, the Muslim in the street.)?
With Christians, Jews, Sikhs, atheists and so on, society takes the commonsense view that they are not entitled not to be offended; the right to offend is part of our general freedom. (As an atheist the only thing that would offend me is the suggestion that I be protected from offence!)
Rushdie writes a book which, absurdly, raises calls for him to be murdered � calls supported by senior British Muslims, without their being prosecuted. Cartoons are printed in Denmark which cause Christian churches to be burnt down and others murdered. Many freedom-loving countries (USA, France, Germany, Norway) print the cartoons but no-one in UK does. Jerry Springer offends Christians but is not barred from coming here, while Wilders is. I could go on but I won�t for now.
So, do we show undue partiality towards the sensitivities of official Islam? <