1. Birgitta doesn't mention that Vilks was asked why he only ridiculed Muslims and whether he would make a drawing of a jew as a pig. He immediately did, and I haven't heard of any reaction to this provocation yet. 2. If we were to follow the logic of Birgitta's argument all art has to be judged exclusively by the public's reaction at a certain point in time. That would exclude quite a few pieces of art that we consider an integral part of our cultural heritage. 3. One of the most important functions of art is to provoke. Are we to do away with this now, or does this ban on provocations only concern Muslim sensibilities? 4. It offends me deeply that Birgitta speak of the Muslims as an ethnic group, because it means that if you are born a Muslim you'll stay a Muslim throughout your entire life. Frankly, I don't think Salman Rushdie or Ibn Warraq would subscribe to this definition. What makes a religion different from ethnicity is that one is free to leave it. You have a choice that, in fact, is central to the notion of freedom of religion. Apostasy is a fundamental human right, while it is a crime in most Muslim countries. 5. The Swedish art institutions' reason for rejecting Lars Vilk's drawings was a security considerations, i.e. the drawings were not judged on their merits. They did not say: your drawings are offensive or bad or outrageous, and therefore we will not put them on show. No, they said, we are afraid to show your drawings, we feel intimidated, and there we will not exhibit them. 6. Birgitta has a seemingly well intentioned perspective, when she criticises those who practise "irresponsible speech". I agree that one should not offend just for the sake of offending, but the fact of the matter is that a critical right one does not have in a democracy (one does have many other rights) is the right not to be offended (in Ronald Dworkin's eloquent phrase). "Irresponsible speech" was a wide spread accusation leveled at dissidents in the former Soviet bloc when they insulted the communist ideology or communist leaders. And today the same kind of accusations are being directed against those who in other parts of the world insist on the right to free speech. Especially in the Muslim world, repressive regimes have laws on the books that criminalize "irresponsible speech", i.e. ridiculing the prophet, the religion of Islam, the king of Thailand and so on and so forth. The problem with the call for "responsible speech" is that individuals do have different understandings, and so do countries and regions. What sounds responsible to me, may sound irresponsible to Brigitta. If you use the percieved feeling of insult as a yardstick for irresponsible speech, those who scream loudest about how offended they are will decide what is responsible and what is not. The only legal limitation we should put on speech is defamation and incitement to violence. Free speech is indivisible, especially in a globalised world.

Birgitta is probably motivated by a reasonable desire to cultivate the muslim community in Europe (I doubt if she has any ambitions in the Muslim world) as a vote bank, but I do think this effort is likely to fail. The minimum demands of the Islamists cannot be satisfied by offering them bland articles about "irresponsible speech" and "artistic responsibility". They are now waiting for Vilks head to be delivered to them and these convoluted arguments are weak tea... By the way, if I am offended by politically correct speech, will Brigitta take steps to avoid offending me in the future?

Compare these details in the aftermath of the murder of Theo van Gogh by a muslim in the name of islam. It sheds some light on their psyche. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knRLJp-nqSg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOS9vsccJs

This controversy is a kind of Koan - a putting together of two mutually irreconcilable principles. We in the West regard freedom of expression as inviolable, while Muslims regard the image of the Prophet as sacred. it is the irresistable force meeting the immovable object. Who gives way? There is no answer that can satisfy both sides at this point in time. In years to come, Muslims will absorb a more Western approach, tolerating the views of others, accepting that not everyone believes as they do, and accepting that living in Western societies, they have to live with provocationists like Viks. Meanwhile, Viks' action is probably setting back the day that Muslims learn to be tolerant. He is almost certainly strengthening the attitudes and influence of hard line Islamists, and weakening the position of Muslims who are learning to relax. This is not to say that Viks should not have done what he did, because in the same way, to say this would simply provoke him to do it again in spades. What we can say is that if we value toleration, perhaps we should try to tolerate the sensitivities of Muslims with regard to the image of the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and upon all the world including provocationist artists).

Open Democracy Articles Tend....... to err on the side of moderation. But I do agree with Flemming Rose. In that we should be careful about how we try to control speech and free expression in regards to Islam. First, used was political correctness, in that even though one could open a Koran and read passages that, vilify Jews and Christians, and encouraged the beating of women for example - it was politically correct - to say that these things were not a part of Islam and even to go as far as saying that the Koran doesn’t say these things. Prior to this - PC was understood as being a way to moderate the actual - never to deny it. Rather than saying for instance that a person was cripple - we use the PC term, physically challenged. Now, even though anyone can open a Koran and read how Muhammad, killed and ordered others to be killed in order to convert - it is PC to say that there is no truth to this. Even when a terrorist who has committed a horrible act - points out which Koranic verse he used to justify his attack - in the West we are all to utilize the PC speak, and tow the political Islamic line – (used for the Western audience) and that is to say that Islam teaches peace and that their acts of terror have nothing to do with the teachings of the Prophet they claim to be following. It makes you wonder - one is the PC version of Islam meant to protect the wider Islamic population from scorn of their religious practices and of their Prophet in the Western world? Is the PC version of Islam - meant to act as a pacifying mechanism - to dull the Western populace as to the true reality and intent of Islam - in the face of an increasing tide of Islamic violence, aggression and dissention - the world over? What is driving the PC force – the price of oil, the possibility of being denied it – if Muslim sensibilities are offended? Is it trade boycotts – from butter to missiles? Is it the threats of death – and so are we becoming like the abused wife who is careful not to say things so her husband will not have reason to beat her – and finds herself cowering to his every whim? Long live freedom of expression >

I certainly think there are limits to what is acceptable in free-speech and what is unacceptable. First off, I perfectly understand how drawings of Muhammed in his portrayal as a terrorist and scoundrel can greatly offend and upset the Muslim population, which is just over 1.4 billion. I mean, if Jesus Christ or Buddha or Abraham were drawn in such a compromising way, it would also be offensive. However, Islam appears to have a far more violent reaction clad in threats, fire, and weapons. Muhammed is a peacemaker. He preaches love and compassion. If he were to be here today and offended in such a way, he would NEVER resort to violence and threats. He would act peacefully. The fact that many violent acts are done in the name of Allah and Muhammed completely goes against the whole idea of religion: peace. Free-speech and democracy are there so that anarchy and terrorism could be neutralized. A violent response to such things very unfortunately only reflects the validity of the caricatures. Apparently, saying anything against Muhammed would give you 70 years in Hell. I can say with great conviction that such violent protests in the Muslim world are acted out against their own people as well. There are always things to fight about and no one will be satisfied. The thing is, no one claims responsibility, and even if they do, the events repeat over and over again. To claim responsibility is one thing, but to prevent such breakouts from happening is another. If a journalist in the Islamic world were being threatened, oppressed and terrorized by violent groups, then he or she would very likely resort to similar socio-political means of communication. Here is where the line is drawn, however. Christians, Buddhists, and Jews are made caricatures all the time. All their prophets and holy figures are made fun of, and that's fine. As an almost spiteful act, as if making fun of free-speech, Islamists proposed to make Caricatures portraying the Holocaust as a false and humorous event. Now this I find offensive and unacceptable. The fact is, making fun of a violent group of people is one thing, but making fun of the suffering, torture and deaths of millions of people is another. A spiteful reaction. I am a religious person but not necessarily Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or any other religion per se. I believe in and respect all of the fundamental beliefs of religion. I respect compassion, love, peace, laughter, family, truth: all the qualities respected by the prophets therein. I do not respect, however, that which goes against those qualities. I do not respect hypocrites, yes even in Islam. Fundamentally, I very much disagree with the Muhammed caricatures, but when I saw the reactions and when I thought about the aggression of the people, I became worried for the safety and unification of humankind and became convinced that the caricatures were making (unfortunately) a valid statement. Muhammed, of course, is not a terrorist, but it appears that the violent and threatening actions in His name are what offend Him, and not the caricatures. Why do I say that? There is a saying: "If you see the Buddha, Kill the Buddha". Any God's or Prophet's name can be put in there. Is it offensive? Actually, it isn't. Let me explain . When people think of Buddha (or any God they follow -- or otherwise -- per se), they describe Him (or Her) as "great, all-knowing, and all-powerful". When the person or follower reaches a high rank of power in the religion, getting closer to that image of Buddha, then he or she must kill that image of the all-great, all-knowing and powerful being. Why? If he doesn't kill that image, if he thinks so highly of Buddha, then he will think very highly of himself. If that happens, he will be ready to kill, to destroy, to oppress all in Buddha's name. What one must do is look at the fundamental things that Buddha stands for: love, compassion, simplicity and humility. By forgetting what Buddha encompasses, the practitioner would be acting against his own God, his religion, and humanity, all the while under the false conviction that he is defending his God's honour and preserving the Religion -- when, in fact, it is the opposite. All the Prophets and Gods preach peace, humility, and love. Allah and Muhammed as well. Having said that, it appears that many people, many in Islam as well (many; not all), have forsaken the greatness of their religious teachings. I think they view Him highly (as they should) but at the cost of principles. And Principles, the teachings, of a religion must always come before the prophet because the Prophet put the teachings before himself. Often, followers view their religious position so highly that they forget what they do in the name of their Gods or Prophets (e.g. Allah or Muhammed) and actually go against Them and Their views of love, peace, and compassion. Do not get me wrong, I've met numerous Muslims who are absolutely wonderful, generous, kind people. However, on a large scale, based on what I have witnessed, I see much trouble and chaos in their midst. And it really upsets me. (Many areas, not just Islam, have these issues to deal with. But it appears a lot more in Islam; and, really, when Islam takes that leap to compassion, and when everyone can do the same, things would look up for everyone.) I told this to a Muslim acquaintance recently, and he said to me: "You say we have forgotten the teachings? I would say that it is the world that has forsaken what Muhammed stands for." And I said: "I agree with you. The world really has forgotten how great He is. And that is because, I think His image has been tainted by violence, agression, and sadness. But it is the job of the people with good principles, who put humanity first and vanity later that will save His good name. So far it appears what many have learned from Him is negativity, even though he does not teach it. But drain it and the world will respond accordingly and peacefully. This doesn't go just to you, but to many other people. Just don't wait for others to do it; it's better to act instead of react." He seemed a bit troubled for a moment, but then he nodded and we shook hands. He may or may not have agreed with me, but we resolved our differences in the best way. That gave me great joy.

We would, wouldn't we, like to think that we are fully self aware, and congratulate ourselves - and others - when they are, while demanding responsibility from others. People have the right to insult others for insulting sake - so long as they don't preclude other people from having a similar right to point out the above group's utter stupidity. Artists on the other hand do not have rights, but obligations. One of these obligations is to be irresponsible - artistic irresponsibility guarantees the artists' rights. Once a society, or an artist, requires art to be responsible, this freedom is lost to culture's grave costs. This criticism can be leveled at many art contemporary projects which are being asked, as part of the funding process, to prove "responsibility" via the instrumentalisation of thought. (e.g. what will be the effect of your art? how will people gain from your art? why is your project needed? etc..) I suspect that Birgitta Steene is writing from within the current context of requiring artists to be, or at least to "appear to be" - responsible. From this point of view, there is no intrinsic contradiction from much of contemporary funded art practice and a call for someone to show some responsibility.. Show me a person, even Birgitta Steene and her like, that is able to respond to every thing they utter or say, and a person that say being asked to be responsible is not being asked to self censor - and I'll show you an all too easy way to spot a self deluded liar..