>i believe that considering the position of Muslims in Europe
>that the right thing for Charlie to do would've been to ease
>up on going at Islam in the magazine so as to avoid
>compounding the oppression on Muslims in Europe. kinda like
>the way most media here in the USA avoids using 'nigger' as a
>pejorative or even in jest. they use other slurs but choose
>not to use that one.
>
>the 'why?' is the heart of my point. why does media here
>censor itself when it comes to 'nigger'? why do well-meaning
>white ppl censor themselves when it comes to 'nigger'? and
>other slurs too like 'faggot' and 'kike' and 'cunt'...
>
>why?
>
>^ IMO European Muslims deserve the same consideration when it
>comes to depictions of the Prophet and possibly w/other issues
>too. but i'm talking specifically about the cartoon thing.

Self censorship on race/gender/sexuality slurs have much to do with the history of those words and their oppressive effects.

Bowing to a religious rule of someone else's faith in your own country would be like giving up beef in case some militant Hindus came gunning for you. Christianity is diminishing in this country and I'd hate for this angle to be used against, say, white gay comedians lampooning one of our local Christian leaders. Because the church I'm thinking of is predominantly Maori/Pacific Islander (read: minorities) and has shown a taste for physical intimidation of gays in the past. Let them think depictions of their leader are likewise sacred and I'm really uncomfortable with the precedent you're proposing. I imagine Salman Rushdie might feel some kind of way as well.