There is an inherant right that must be upheld and not trampled on.  The right to a free and open press.  If they cave to the muslims, then they might as well turn over the key to the editorial page, for any time anything they disagree with is published, out will come the slogans and demonstrations again.  While you may find it objectionable, and I am sure muslims do as well, the simple fact that once a group can dictate editorial content to the press, the notion of the freedom of the press is lost.

And so are many of the rights associated with it.

I find it amazing that in a country like France, where there are so many laws protecting employees from being fired, that employee was fired so easily.

I think the stubborness we're seeing in Europe right now about not apologising and reprinting the pictures might have something to do with the French riots. Europeans are angry that Muslims are trying to browbeat them and change their values of democracy, civil liberty and a free press.

Dr Guy, your wisdom as usual, isappreciated. But surely press freedom can go too far?

Dr Guy, your wisdom as usual, isappreciated. But surely press freedom can go too far?

Oh, I agree it sometimes (like in this case) degrades into very bad judgement and taste.  But a part of being free is the freedom to be stupid.  We have lots of examples here in America.  And while we can editorialize about their stupidity and "wish" they would clean up their act, very few would actually call for an oversight committee.  For then the abuse would be too great a temptation.

"...might have something to do with the French riots. " Wrong guess. The assumption that the Islam is responsible for the riots in France seems to be very common in the US, but it's very rare here in europe. In general, most europeans believe that the riots were the result of poverty/unemployment, lack of perseptives etc - social problems, not religious extremism. (It is true, though, that muslim extremists took advantage of the situation, but that's another topic.)
Thus, the french riots didn't enter into the debate about the cartoons at all. A point, however, that is playing a major role in the discussion here in europe, is the asassination of Theo van Gogh in 2004. This is one of the keys you need to understand the reaction in europe.

@Dr.Guy: Couldn't agree more.

"Wrong guess. The assumption that the Islam is responsible for the riots in France seems to be very common in the US"

That may be true, but I am in Britain and the view that poverty caused the French riots is held by socilaists and the left in general. The real reason for the French riots is the self inflicted cultural disconnection of Muslims in the countries they immigrate to. How do they expect to get jobs if make no effort to integrate? There are plenty of poor in France, Britain, Germany, USA etc but it seems that Muslims whine the loudest and the most destructively.

Good point. There is also a large number of muslims who refuse to integrate here in germany, and there's a lot of trouble yet to come, I'm afraid. It's often an escalating spiral - ghettos where the non-integrated stay among them selves worsens the situation and makes successfull integration of the 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants far less plausible. Non-integration leads to poverty, and poverty and hopelessness lead to all kinds of extremisms. (Just compare the unemployment rates in german cities with neonazi activity... the correaltion is obvious.)
.... well getting off-topic here.

They are thick for firing him. I think some of the French now realize that they are living under the threat of riots. Publish something we don't like? We'll burn your car. THis is the press, people. Now you have a standard set in the French press that you can be fired for offending people's religion. What next?

As I said in my blog on the subject, we have the right to ridicule and question in a free society, and NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO ABIDE BY OTHER PEOPLE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. It is a MUSLIM belief that an image of Muhammed is blasphemous. No one but a Muslim should be expected to keep to that, and they should shut the hell up and appreciate the freedom that allows them to live as they choose.

Imposing reverence for a man you don't believe was a prophet is imposing religious behavior, plain and simple. You can be respectful to people's beliefs and still live in a free society. When you say "respect the prophet or get fired" you are imposing religion, and that is wrong.

Je trouve cette affaire vraiment ridicule, j'ai vu les caricatures ( toutes), le moins qu'on puisse dire c'est qu'elles brillent par leur médiocrité...Artistiquement parlant, ça relève de la facilité des clichés. Il ne suffit pas de dénigrer pour faire caricaturiste...

D'ailleurs c'est pas la première fois que ce genre de caricature existe, j'en ai vu pas mal ces 5 dernières années, et je me demande où étaient ses arabes et ses musulmans et leurs gouvernements de pacotille? On entend des cris d'orfraie partout, comme si des caricatures peuvent souiller l'icône relgieuse qu'est Mahomet...

C'est facile de se cacher derrière une icône que de proclamer et de militer pour la liberté d'expression, quasi inexistante dans la plupart des pays musulmans et arabes surtout, à quelques exceptions de près, mais à prendre avec des pincettes bien sûr...

Pour l'info, l'éditor a été limogé par l'actionnaire majoritaire du journal France Soir, qui, tenez-vous bien, est un chrétien d'origine arabe !!!

That's a good point, mar'ouki. Either they are complaining that ANY rendition of Mohammed is blaspheme, which is imposing Islamic law on non-muslims as they do in their own nations, or they are upset with the way he is portrayed, which also imposes their standards of reverence for the person himself.

Don't you think this is counter-productive when the Muslims in France are complaining that their freedom of expression was limited by the French edict about female dress in government buildings? If Muslims want to be able to express themselves as they like without fear of reprisal, it seems odd that they would offer reprisals for those who are doing the same.

It is a shame they fired the editor. With this act he opened up a discourse about freedom and people's rights to express themselves, and in return he lost his job because of religious zealots imposing their ideals on the rest of their nation.

D'un autre côté, je me demande pourquoi cette escalade de provocation de la part de pas mal de journaux européens, ils ont les éditoriaux pour faire connaitre leur position noir sur blanc, sans toutefois publier ces caricatures... Je pense que cette affaire est un sinistre bétisier, de part et d'autre... Lamentable et désolant, non ?

mar'ouki: I think it is the inevitable response of someone in a free society being told that they are not allowed to express themselves freely. Maybe it was needless to a point, however by printing it perhaps they opened up a dialog and revealed the hypocrisy of the system.

Perhaps the editor saw his society growing more and more fearful of offending religious zealots and decided it was time for people to discuss it openly. Bringing society's ills into the light and inviting people to make up their minds is the main point of the press, isn't it?