'FREE' Speech or The Law of The JUNGLE?

RESPECT is something we all need as human beings. Regardless of race, religion, or nationality, each of us has the inherent desire as individuals to command respect from our fellow human beings.

Whether or not we GET IT, is a different story.

So the question is then, where does RESPECT begin, with yourself or with others? And what motivates people to RESPECT each other? Comity? FEAR? Or a little of both?

As the protests have spread, some Europeans have come to realize that relatively small Muslim minorities — 3 percent in Britain, 4 percent in Denmark and around 5 percent in the European Union — can wield power across the Islamic world.

"No longer is the issue merely that of belittling an immigrant group," wrote Jürgen Gottschlich, a German journalist based in Istanbul. "Just as there are heroes of free speech in Denmark, there are also heroes from the Arabian peninsula to North Africa to Indonesia who are ready to take to the barricades to defend their prophet's dignity."

Ibrahim Magdy, 39, an Egyptian Coptic Christian with a florist business in Rome, said, "The problem now is that when you say something or do something, you are not just talking to the Egyptians or to the Syrians or to the Saudis, but you are talking to the entire Muslim world."

"Islam is protected by an invisible blasphemy law," said Jasper Gerard, a columnist in The Sunday Times. "It is called fear."

The implication, of course, is that if not for their strength and their numbers, Muslim sensitivities and beliefs would not be respected or protected.

This is no surprise given the current atmosphere of pre-emptive war and unilateral action.

But, it begs the question 'why must FEAR be the only incentive to show respect for others?'

Why can't empathy and comity play a central role?

Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten . . . insisted last week that his interest lay solely in asserting the right to free speech over religious taboos. "When Muslims say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission," he said.

[A]n editorial in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad [read]"In European countries, with a large or growing Muslim minority, there is a real fear that behind the demand for respect hides another agenda: the threat that everyone must adjust to the rules of Islam."

How does a request for respect transform itself into a demand for submission?

It's true that in order to respect a Muslim's request not to malign or caricaturize their prophet, then, in a sense, you cannot avoid but to submit to that request.

But, does that mean that you submit to Islam? Or does it mean that you submit to a simple request by a Muslim to respect their deeply held beliefs?

You're not asked to take affirmative action. Muhammad is not your prophet and you're not asked to make him so. You don't follow him or believe in him or require anything from him for your livelihood. The significance of his memory is uniquely Muslim.

What business do you have caricaturizing him in a bad light, or any light at all, except to injure his followers?

And if you insist on injuring his followers, their feelings and their dignity be damned, then how can you complain of the fear they elicit in you when they collectively assert their indignation at what amounts to an arbitrary refusal to show them respect? Shall they submit meekly to your insults to avoid arousing your fear of their numbers and their strength?

---

Don't be fooled by the sophistries advanced by these provocateurs. They're designed to mislead and distract from the deadly aim of their exercise. This is NOT and NEVER WAS about free speech.

They HIDE behind the pen, but brandish a SWORD.

Mutual RESPECT is essential for social harmony. Any self respecting person knows that.

And if respect is not realized through comity, the next best alternative is that it be realized through fear. Hence, our nations are armed to the teeth.

Because if RESPECT cannot be realized through either, then its absence means WAR.

Fleming Rose and his cohorts know that WAR is the logical conclusion of their arguments. That's what they're pushing for.

The question is, will we let them take us there? Or will we wisely allow our sense of comity AND fear of mutual obliteration restrain us?