`cause many British Muslims great pain because they would have been told that the publication was intended to show contempt for their religion, and though that perception would have been inaccurate and unjustified the pain would nevertheless have been genuine' (Dworkin, Donald `Even bigots and Holocaust deniers must have their say', The Guardian, 14.02.2006)

So although Dworkin defends freedom of speech, it was the right decision not to print the cartoons because of what the muslims would have been told by extremists? It is important to remember this because to the rest of Dworkin's argument it remains central that in a democracy, people can think and evaluate for themselves rather than being subject to `extremists' who inject their ideology into them.

Yet, Dworkin admits that in a democracy nobody can be insulted or offended. How can that be made compatible with what he said before? The muslims in Britain must be protected . Even although the idea, the cartoons would be a direct attack on all muslims is admitedly, so Mr. Dworkin, not reprinting them is only sensible. Lean back and enjoy while seeing where Ronald is going:

`Muslims who are outraged by the Danish cartoons point out that in several European countries it is a crime publicly to deny, as the president of Iran has denied, that the Holocaust ever took place. They say that western concern for free speech is therefore only self-serving hypocrisy, and they have a point. But of course the remedy is not to make the compromise of democratic legitimacy even greater than it already is but to work toward a new understanding of the European convention on human rights that would strike down the Holocaust-denial law and similar laws across Europe...' (ibid.)

It is argued, that this freedom of speech is not a Western value in itself but a fundamental necessaty for legitimate democratic government. It is therefore in the interest of democracy to, on the one hand, protect the muslims from feeling bad about the cartoons (because they are under the control of extremists -- what claim could be more islamophobic') but on the other hand open the debate about the Holocaust. Of course only in the interest of democratic legitimacy. Contrary to Dworkin's believe, democratic legitimacy does not make anti-semitism any better. Consequently, as long as a debate on the Holocaust is likely to feed anti-semitism (again), I won't debate, particularly not with those, who deny, insult and play down those who suffered during the Holocaust.