In the light on events in Denmark, I'd just like to spotlight a comment on the previous thread with which I completely agree:
On the World this Weekend Mark Mardell twice asked interviewees whether they thought that having the meeting was likely to cause offence. Think about the mental proceeds that gave rise to such a question. A meeting in a European country discussing free speech .... and there are those that now consider whether even that might be going too far. By even floating the question as though it was perfectly reasonable, the debate can now begin to be developed until we reach the point where it will become legitimate to claim that meetings are themselves offensive.
Here's what Mark Mardell said.
To Hans Engell, editor-in-chief of tabloid Elkstra Bladet: But what about the idea that this meeting was provocative? That a number of issues in Denmark have been deliberately designed to offend Muslims?
To Frank Jensen, Lord Mayor of Copenhagen: I suppose there would be some who would say that the meeting was deliberately provocative.
"Provocative" was very much the word on the BBC man's mind. He'd already used in during his initial commentary:
The target appears to have been the event's organiser, Swedish artist Lars Vilks - under constant police protection since he draw a provocative cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad as a dog.
As well as using the Muslim form of words "the Prophet Mohammad" rather than, say, the more neutral "the Muslim prophet Mohammad", he also managed to inject a disapproving tone of voice into the way he said "as a dog" - a tone obviously intended to make clear his own distaste for some provocative behaviour.
If anyone was going to exemplify the BBC's mindset in action it was always going to be Mark Mardell.
