sabah,
Thanks.
People have an inherent right to offer their opinion within certain restrictions. We cannot ban criticism of major religions and their icons if we hope to promote free-speech. What we can do, and need to do is to set up barriers and limits seperating hate speech from legitimate criticism. The barriers, of course, aren't unconditional, occasions will arise when you'll to judge matters on case by case bases. In theory this sounds pretty good, but in praticse, the problem of law-makers is where exactly to draw the line.
For example, discussion of sensitive topics like the recent alleged peadophilia accusitions on Holy Prophet, should they be discussed on a state-run/public, officially non-committal Channel? If you ban them you'll get people protresting abuse of rights granted by the First Ammendment [or the British equivalent of it, if any], in any case you are bound to get hoardes of people who'll be highly offended.
In fact, you cannot reasonably expect such a topic to be discussed in any vein, however neutral without wide-spread public outrage. The very concept of, well, such a blasphemy is ludicrous for Muslims.
And yet, should you, due to the fear of mass protrest, set up laws banning public discussion of such unsavoury topics?
In this case, and other cases like this, the historical background has been so muddled and public so opinionated that however objective your intentions, you'll automatically be accused of flagrancy and suddenly find your life in jeopardy.
This is a sticky situation for any government which considers itself objective and secular, you'll either have the human-right activists yapping at your heals or Muslim/religious leaders billowing in your ears, and possibly more.
So, really, it is the question of seperating chaff from the grain, only in this world of ours where political correctness and equality are consider before everything else, you are buggered either way.
I am afraid, ultimately state priorities will win over, the rod is too thin and the weight too heavy to fiddle for too long a time. That is why you often see governments applying multiple standards, to ballance things out.
And currently, state priorities lie in palacating the Muslims.
As for Bulleh Shah, well I haven't studied him so I cannot offer my personal opinion/experience, but going by what you have posted [and assuming it isn't satire or mystic shikwa of some sort] I am surprised he wasn't strung up like a rotten ham in his day and age for this.
Sabah posted,
[QUOTE]
The claim often made by intellectuals is that, intentional provocation, provokes you to re-think everything you're sensitive about, be that religion or nation etc.
[/QUOTE]
This may be so on a hypothetical level, * but chances of this actually happening today are marginally better then a snowball's chance in hell.*
