A Muslim leader in Britain says the Prophet Muhammad cartoons aren't free speech, but hate speech against Muslims. I disagree.

An excerpt from the Guardian commentary by Anas Altikriti:

It has been claimed that freedom of speech is absolute and beyond qualification. Indeed, the reproduction of the Danish cartoons across a number of European and non-European countries was claimed to be in support of such an unqualified right. But how much do we really exercise or tolerate such a notion?

Religion no more restricts freedom of speech than secularism promotes it. Is it so difficult to digest that Islam considers insulting the prophets of God a profound violation of what is sacred, just as Europe rightly regards denial of the Nazi Holocaust? Indeed, if freedom of speech were really the non-negotiable absolute in the west it is now claimed, then we would expect there to be uproar at legal bans on Holocaust denial or laws against incitement to racial hatred.

Those who claim to uphold freedom of speech by defending the right to reproduce insulting depictions of the prophet are in effect saying to Muslims that what they hold dear and sacred is far more worthy of protecting than what Muslims hold dear and sacred. The cartoons had more to do with incitement of hatred, racism and Islamophobia than with freedom of expression.

First of all, I think there is consensus in this society, if not Britain, that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Promoting hatred against an identifiable group is a criminal offence in most Western countries.

This week in Britain, the radical Islamic preacher Abu Hamza was sentenced to seven years for hate promotion, some of it involving attacks on Jews.

Here's an excerpt of what the judge said, according to the BBC:

Passing sentence at the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Hughes told Abu Hamza: "I do not make the mistake that you represent Islamic thinking generally.

"You are entitled to your views and in this country you are entitled to express them, but only up to the point where you incite murder or use language calculated to incite racial hatred. That is what you did."

Canada has prosecuted people for Holocaust denial and other forms of hate speech. And actually, anti-Semitic fringe groups and extreme Libertarians have called for the elimination of hate-speech laws as hampering freedom of expression. Canadian society hasn't listened to them.

There is consensus that generally speaking, cartoonists can satirize religious figures and beliefs -- so long as they don't cross that amorphous boundary into hate speech. From my viewing of the Jyllens-Posten cartoons, I don't like them, but neither do I think they incite hatred of Muslims.

In any event, that tradition and value of satire existed before mass Muslim immigration began to Western countries.

Now that Muslims are here, how much should they change to adapt to Western mores, and how much should Western mores change to accomodate Muslims (or other groups)?

I don't believe those with voices in the mass media should gratuitously offend minority groups, but if offence is caused, it's beholden on both sides to work out their differences in a civilized manner.

I'd really like to talk to some Canadian Muslims and see what they think the reasonable bounds of discussion should be.