Van - I think you will find respect for the UN is waning fast and this may well be the last straw. I agree that personally abusive comments should not be allowed. Disrespect of any religion or race is a delicate issue and restraint should be shown by journalists who should be abiding by a code of ethics.

The cartoons were an example of very bad journalism. Someone should maybe lose their job and professional status but I do not think it should be a criminal offence. In fact, referring to Syed's previous article Jan 2006 "Compromising our freedom of speech" he does not think so either:

quote
"the state should not suppress the basic human rights and democratic values of the people by criminalising free speech."

the international court of justice arbitrates disputes between states, not individuals. only a state has standing, and then only against another state with regard to a breach of intyernaitonal law.

the international criminal court does hear allegations regarding the conduct of individuals. however, i doubt you could get sufficient consensus among the nations of the world to prohibit conduct that offended people - regardless of how strongly held or felt.

blasphemy or similar offences are very rarely, if ever, laid against anyone - particularly in multi-cultural, multi-religious communities. we could never hope to ensure that everyone knew enough about everyone else's sensitivities to be able to ensure that prosecution was just. for example, do you know what my sensitivities are? am i religious? if so, which one? which variation? am i *really* offended on religious grounds, or are other issues involved?

if minorities are not protected, then we're just enforcing majority - or at least more populous - values on them. hardly in keeping with either democracy, or the larger human rights. and there are probably more than a few athiests and irreligious people who would object to religion having any more special status in our society and our laws than they already enjoy.

freedom of expression does not give you the right to prevent me from disagreeing with you. or possibly even offending you. though it will not protect me if i say something that unecessarily damages your reputation - unless what i have said is truthful or is required by law.

as recently discussed [http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4149] by *graham young*, tolerance is a *necessity* for coexistance. something western cultures learned the long, hard way. refusal to consider compromise is one of the reasons some conflicts become intractable. history is replete with examples. and the bodies of others.

Someone here asked for links to the Egyptian paper that printed those cartoon.

Well here is a link. http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/2006/02/egyptian-newspaper-pictures-that.html

Note for some reason or other that there were no riots, flab burning or breaking of diplomatic relations as some of the morons are doing now, like I mean to say fancy biting the hands that feeds you like the Palestinians who have told the Danes that they can keep their aid - they can get it somewhere else - yeah like Saudi Arabia perhaps...?

I note also that Queen Margethe is quoted by her biographer as saying ...

"We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml

I can understand Muslims who are angry at the newspaper. Was it a single, light-hearted cartoon..... or did the editor of the newspaper select the topic and publish a set of 12 cartoons they knew would be inflammatory and collectively more pointed? For the same reason people hesitate before telling a joke about jesus christ at a party... they should understand the position of Muslims a little

SHARIA CALL FOR AUSTRALIA ?

Sure sounds like it from this article in "Islamic Sydney"

[Muslims now demand a clear guarantee such incident will not stand a repeat, not by curbing freedom of expression as some in the West may be propagating, but by criminalizing "abuse of power".]

Can some brilliant scholar please point out to my rather thick head, what the heck difference there is between 'curbing abuse of power' and 'curbing freedom of expression' ? In this context they are identical !

My skin crawled today as I watched video of Sheikh Abu Hamza of UK infamy, telling his students that :

"If you come across a Kafir in Islamic territory, he is booty ! You can take him immediately to sell him in the market place.. or.. just KILL him."

This man has been 'observed' by the UK police for so long.. without them being able to DO anything till now about this moron.

I saw him on HardTalk, ducking and weaving the hard questions about the brutalization of moderates in the mosque they took over.

HOW MANY times, Have I said.. ranted..raved..predicted... perhaps even 'prophesied'(only God knows that) that the RADICALS will drive the Islamic Agenda. The more people of the Islamic faith here, and to the degree they feel marginalized, to that degree also will the ranks of the radicals be swelled.

Small numbers of highly motived people, can have an impact FARRRRR in excess of their actual numbers.

Be Vigilant friends.. very very vigilant... and VOCAL.

No wonder the sedition laws were brought in. With people like Hamza, does anyone truly doubt that we need them ? Could he have been dealt with under existing laws ? I doubt it.

Froggie,
I suggest you become familiar on just what the idea of democracy means.

It does not mean the implementation of laws and values of atheists!

It does mean everyone has rights to express their views and values and lobby politicians to reflect those values.

It does not mean a society devoid of religion or conscience for the convenience of one section who refuse religious conviction and conscience.

You may prefer a society and State expressing only your values. But get this: Australia is a democracy and people in Australia do have religious convictions about the intrinsic value of all human life.

You appear to be bordering on Third Reich world views of a Totalitarian State that reflects only one opinion.

Quote, "In our society, religion and politics are, or should be, separated. The other religions seem to have accepted that (with some exceptions, as the recent abortion drug debate shows, although that is supposed to be a conscience vote) I'm not sure that Islam could accept the separation of religion and State."

With views expressed as above you are also ignotant of what is meant by the seperation of Church and State. It means the State is not governed by the heirarchy of the Church. It does not mean all politicians must be non-religious and atheist.