Underlying the debate on the publication of the cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet, Muhammad, as a terrorist, is the contention that freedom of speech is part of European culture and tradition; that we tolerate the blasphemy of our own religious icons and that if Muslims want to be part of European society they have to accommodate that tradition of tolerance, writes Vincent Browne.
The problem with that argument is that it is founded on a false premise.
European culture and tradition has not been tolerant of blasphemy, and I am not speaking of Europe of the Middle Ages - I am referring to contemporary Europe.
In 1977 Mary Whitehouse, a campaigner for what she called "public morality", including "taste" and "decency" in the media (I use inverted commas here because the concepts are controversial) took a private prosecution against Gay News in Britain. The publication had published a poem depicting Jesus as a homosexual. This prosecution was taken at a time when liberalism was sweeping politics and jurisprudence in Britain.
The prosecution was successful by a 10 to two majority verdict of a jury.
The verdict was appealed to the court of appeal and, ultimately, to the House of Lords, and in instances the appeal failed.
One of the judges in the House of Lords was Lord Scarman, one of the most liberal judges in recent British history. He had presided over an inquiry into the outbreak of conflict in Northern Ireland in August 1969 and, uniquely, had produced a report that was widely regarded as fair. In his Gay News judgment, he said: "I do not subscribe to the view that the common law offence of blasphemous libel serves no useful purpose in modern law. On the contrary, I think there is a case for legislation extending it to protect the religious beliefs and feelings of non-Christians . . . In an increasingly plural society such as that of modern Britain it is necessary not only to respect the differing religious beliefs, feelings and practices of all, but also to protect them from scurrility, vilification, ridicule and contempt."
This was the pronouncement of a judge who was then the most influential in the highest court, in what was supposedly the most liberal European state.
The case was appealed to the European Court of Human Rights and, as is the practice, was first examined by the Commission, an adjunct to the court (this Commission is quite a different body to the EU Commission; it examines cases referred to the European Court of Human Rights to determine whether the case should go to the court itself).
The Commission declared the Gay News complaint as "manifestly ill-founded" - this was in May 1982. It stated: "The Commission considers that the offence of blasphemous libel, as it is construed under the applicable common law, in fact has as its main purpose to protect the rights of citizens not to be offended in their religious feelings by publications."
So here we have the authoritative interpreter of European standards of freedom of speech stating categorically that this freedom is qualified by a right of citizens not to be offended in their religious feelings by publications.
For what it is worth, my view is that the Commission went too far and that Lord Scarman's formulation is preferable; the need to protect the religious beliefs of citizens from "scurrility, vilification, ridicule and contempt", although I am uneasy with the contention that the depiction of Jesus as a homosexual was or could be blasphemous (why should anyone, believers and non-believers, think less of Jesus on that count?).
Self-respect is central to a person's sense of themselves and their place in society. Crucial to the idea of self-respect is a person's sense of his/her own value, his/her secure conviction that their core moral and religious beliefs are worthy. The use of scurrility, vilification, ridicule and contempt in the depiction of a person's religious beliefs goes to the core of their being and attacks their sense of self-respect. This is no prissy "victimhood" manifesto, it is simply an acknowledgment of the central role religion plays in the life of religious believers, not as an adjunct to them but as part of their being.
Many of us have been inadequately respectful of people's religious beliefs, not in disagreeing with or challenging such beliefs but in the manner in which we have done so. There is and must be room to disagree on religious issues, even on whether there is a God or whether Muhammad or Jesus are "prophets" or, in the case of Jesus, whether he was the Messiah or Son of God. But the manner in which such disagreement is expressed should be respectful of the centrality of religious beliefs to the very being of believers.
An expression of contempt for a religious belief is an expression of contempt for believers of that faith. As the laws of libel protect our right to our good name, the laws of blasphemy correctly protect the sense of self-worth and self-esteem of believers.
The response to the publication of a cartoon in an obscure Danish newspaper has clearly got out of proportion, but the surrounding circumstances of the disparagement of the Muslim faith generally and what is perceived as an assault on the Muslim world is the background to that disproportionality.