The commentators 16-02-15
...on Copenhagen shootings
There is no negotiating with men with guns. If progress is to come, it will be via dialogue with the millions of faithful Muslims who would never think to murder but also abhor publication of these cartoons. We cannot have that conversation in a time and spirit of provocation. And to have it would not be an act of weakness. The strong approach is not necessarily to do what is possible, but to do what is right.
- Hugh Muir, The Guardian
These individuals and groups will of course ebb and flow, but it is the ideology that must be combated and defeated. In the process, we can replace the term “war on terror” and focus on the real threat, which is the rise of these evil fascist theocracies.
- Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, Daily Telegraph
People have identified what happened as an attack on free speech, as they did after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. But just as the subsequent onslaught there on Jewish targets demonstrated, the attack on the Copenhagen synagogue shows that this grievously understates what is happening. For this is not a debating issue about the proper boundaries between free expression and giving offence. This is a war being waged to conquer the free world for Islam.
- Melanie Phillips, The Times
For all the constant bleating about “Islamophobia”, there has been no evidence of anti-Muslim backlash in Europe. If some Muslims feel marginalised, it is because of their refusal to integrate by accepting western values. What we need is less acceptance of this divisive victim mentality and more willingness to uphold our essential liberties against bigotry.
- Leo McKinstrey, Daily Express
The call by Denmark’s prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, for the country to stand together echoes the Norwegian response after the massacre at Utøya. This kind of instinctive loyalty and solidarity shows what matters at this worrying time.
- Andrew Brown, The Guardian
There has been celebration today of the recommendation that a judge should approve applications relating to journalists - but most reports have omitted the caveat in the second half of the sentence from their intros. Here it is in full (my underscore):
"Judicial authorisation must be obtained in cases where communications data is sought to determine the source of journalistic information."
Even under the commission's formula, journalists could still have their phone and email records examined by the police on the say-so of a senior officer for other purposes...And why shouldn't they?
No similar protection is proposed for lawyers, doctors, priests and their confidential dealings with clients, patients or parishioners. Perhaps their respective trade journals should kick up a fuss as Press Gazette did.
And how about the other half-million people whose personal data are scrutinised every year?
Protection for sources, not journalists
Please sign up for SubScribe updates
Anti-semitism and Islam
Religion and freedom