but in Indonesia (where I live)
I once saw a documentary that visited the Aceh district in part. I would argue the way un-islamic attire is imposed on the young population in general by their Sharia police or what it is called, does not equally respect all faiths/believes. It is a huge bias towards one religion and to a lesser degree this seems to be similar in many Muslim nations.
The point Independent wanted to make (I think) is that the religion being part of establishment and having big influence in decision making in and of itself is regarded as bad in most Western countries. Whenever one religion or ideology is granted too much respect it has caused terrible political shifts. Mockery and satire is always the first and last line of defense and therefore is granted a special protection. When you already cannot express different opinions in certain settings like politics, public events or universities, the satirical stage is still one that can talk freely. And especially all that is established is being bombarded the most.
Historically in Europe there has been a centuries long battle between church and state. Somewhere down the road all heretics were driven out to America. The US first then created a new system which slowly affected Europe too.
The point is in the west, satire is seen as something holy itself for its educational purpose and it requires freedom. The stronger one is, the more self-confident, the more established the more it/he/she has to suffer mockery, because it can and it should.
This I think also touches on one misunderstanding between the Muslim world and its interpretation of some mainstream western reactions to the protest. Muslim's think their is a lack of respect for their religious feelings but I think it is more a lack of respect for Muslims themselves as in they behave too insecure. In the big globalized world Islam is not some little minority but very much established as the second biggest religion and there is the expectation that they ought to have enough confidence in themselves and their religion to handle some youtube video. It is seen as weakness to be too severely insulted. This is most obvious in the reactions of politicians who sometimes react differently to all the blows they get. If they pay it too much heed, it is seen as a lack of self-confidence. In Europe we grant protection to the weak, the minorities, those that cannot fend for themselves, but the strong, those that have numbers need to fend for themselves. (This is the sentiment of society in general not necessarily perfectly mirrored in every law)
This is why the cry for outlawing this video on a big scale is laughed at. Because of the strange confrontation between.
We demand more respect. Outlaw this stuff.
and
Laws will protect you but not get you respect.
It is not like everybody thinks religious feelings aren't important but that minority protections for believes and opinions are neither necessary nor possible and respect cannot be earned by declaring oneself as a minority worthy of protection. The more stupid or slanderous an insult is like this movie the more it encourages this line of thinking. If the faith is so weak that it cannot handle this ridiculous nonsense, how should we respect it if they don't themselves. Hurt honor doesn't get much consideration at all.
Honor and respect one gets for different things in different cultures. I.e. to me the idea of demanding respect is completely alien. Respect in anti authoritarian society is earned not ever given. It cannot even be given.
I maybe mistaken but from listening to many Muslims it seems to me they want to be respected not simply tolerated. IMO there is a huge difference and only the latter can be insured by law.
This reinforces the point I made in a different thread in this World Affairs section: Just because you ignore the insults that others make against your religion, does not mean it will go away.
Sure the insults won't disappear if one ignores them especially not in the web where there is at least one fool for anything. But they appear less often. The idea that globally movies like innocence of Muslims can be made to disappear is illusory, impossible unless we start a police state.
I think it comes down to a few choices. Should religion be some kind of minority that must be protected from harm? Or is it a worldview capable to take a challenge on its own merits?
The existence of insulting material on the web is if already too insulting just something that is very hard to contain. In a democracy it exists to a certain point and from there one must find a way to deal with it.
In fact, there was a restaurant in Jakarta opened 3-4 years ago called Buddha Bar (yes, a franchise from the famous one in Paris) whose owners were two muslims, daughters from previous Jakarta's governor and Indonesian president. The restaurant also had a huge buddha statue in its premise.
This caused upsets among buddhists community and they protested. Finally the restaurant had to remove the statue and change its name.
How does one define the public sphere. A youtube movie is something that one has to actively pull down from the web. A building in the public that is immovable in your neighborhood is something different. Do you watch a TV Channel that you can switch at the press of a button or are you complaining about a poster you have to pass every day on your way to work. The knowledge of existing insulting material is not the same IMO as inescapable insulting material.
Opening a strip club in some places won't work either.
