I suppose free speech is not a right, Bahu. Because that is what you are arguing against. Free speech is only free speech if the right to offend is PART and parcel of it. What is freedom of speech when you only protect speech that AGREES with you?

Then why is this freedom of speech denied to Islamic political forces. In other words Freedom of Speech is for the West to give offence and this is denied to the Oriental societies.

Blowing children up in shopping malls is NOT free speech, Bahu.

Putting a "hit" on someone is NOT free speech.

We're not rounding up terrorists because they call the US evil, we're rounding them up because they're KILLING people (note: I do NOT approve of this war, but I DO approve of dealing with actual terrorism).

Have we outlawed Islam? Not even close. Mosques in the United States prosper and thrive. Mosques in England and throughout Europe prosper and thrive. You paint us as bigots, Bahu, in the name of tolerance. Shame on you.

Oh come on Bahu! I refer you to my post of 18 June. Who gives a stuff about what Pakhistanis or Iranians think about Rushdie's knighthood? They would stir crap over a bad bar of chocolate. Let's get real here. The Queen, bless her, or Blair, have decided to knight Rushdie for his contribution to literature. Why would any Pakistani or Iranian agree over this? They can't because they are so embroiled in hatred over any system that is not within their liking. It is time that radical countries and their citizens, who bump their heads repeatedly on carpets, to realise that not everyone subscribes to narrow-minded views that go far beyond the norm. I have many Muslim friends but I draw the line when they pretend to honour Allah (PBUH) on Friday, and stab everyone in the back the next day.

If you wish to discuss religion, take me on. Muslim values of peace, family , abstinence and honour I can take. Hypocracy I can't.

. Let's get real here. The Queen, bless her, or Blair, have decided to knight Rushdie for his contribution to literature. Why would any Pakistani or Iranian agree over this?

It is highly suspicious that "Sir" Salamn Rushdie, a prominent supporter of the Bush-Blair Duo invasion of Iraq should be honored by Tony Blaie even as he demits office to Brown later this month. It is downright hypocritical to suggest that Salman is being honored for his contribution to literature, when his last good work was Midnight's Children several decades in the past. Let us get real as you so elegantly put it: He is being honored because he succeds in stirring up Islamic feelings and the West can crow until kingdom come about its great tolerance and liberalism. Where was that tolerance in the Irving case?

Blowing children up in shopping malls is NOT free speech, Bahu.Putting a "hit" on someone is NOT free speech.

Let us not mix up issues here. Palestenians are engaged in a struggle with Israel and there are a lot of unpleasant things happening at both ends. In this case we are addressing a larger issue concerning the feelings of the Islamic World which has been singled out for sustained villification. Remember that Danish woman MP, The Danish Cartoons, the remerks of the Pope and the reference to the US troops being "crusaders".

You seem to suggest that "Free Speech" exists anywhere. Your definition of Free Speech is the right to offend socities and cultures that are essentially not Western. Would that freedom extend to those who preach violence against certain groups, or advocate the overthrow of existing western hegemony. See the way in which a dissident group like the Branch Davidians were treated. If the Moselm world is villified then it is Freedom of Speech> If the same freedom is directed against the Western world it is hate mongering etc etc.

I didn't support the way the Branch Davidians were treated, Bahu, nor did the vast majority of people that I have personally known. It was an outrage.

Please show me where Rushdie called for the murder of Muslims or their leaders? He criticized the Muslim faith, something one should be free to do.

There are multitudes of examples of equal affronts against Christianity, Bahu, yet there's not the same violence. Why?

Your very words, your very comments are as racist as any Klan propaganda could be. Why do I say that? Because you suggest that Muslims are incapable of responding to offensive literature, art, etc, in a nonviolent fashion and that the rest of the world must self censor to avoid offending Muslims. I believe most Muslims are more rational, and that, while they may not be fond of writers like Rushdie, they're not likely to lend support to a fatwah. If the majority of Muslims found him that offensive, he would be long dead by now.

I'm growing tired of your acting as an apologist for terrorists, Bahu. There's no excuse, no rationalization for terrorism, regardless of who initiates it. Yet your comments would cast the terrorists as freedom fighters and any who oppose them as fascists. Yours is a shallow analysis, to say the least, which is disappointing, because I know you're capable of more. I am pleased by your acknowledgment that the Palestinian situation includes a lot of unpleasant things at both ends, but such balance seems to be rare for you.

believe most Muslims are more rational, and that, while they may not be fond of writers like Rushdie, they're not likely to lend support to a fatwah. If the majority of Muslims found him that offensive, he would be long dead by now.

I do believe in the freedom of Expression as I am a civil libertarian, however, I draw the line when it comes to deliberate provocation on religious lines.

I'm growing tired of your acting as an apologist for terrorists, Bahu. There's no excuse, no rationalization for terrorism, regardless of who initiates it. Yet your comments would cast the terrorists as freedom fighters and any who oppose them as fascists.

I am not a blinkered apologist for terrorism and I am opposwed to it. I did not support the fatwa against Rushdie, I am only opposing the Kinighthood.

Strange, I dont see Jihad's being declared over literature (and movies) that slam the Christian religion.  Are there people outraged?  Definitely.  And they boycott those films and books.  But I did not see any Jews calling for the head of Mel Gibson over the Passion of the Christ (boycotts, again yes).  Nor Catholics calling for the head of Daryl Duke for Thorn Birds, or Jane Fonda for Agnes of God.

Where is your outrage over those movies? How about the Da Vinci Code?

Your outrage is phony since it is so selective.