[quote=Peter]

"..On one hand they are very upset (and rightfully so) about what happens to Christians and Jews in these countries, but on the other hand that is exactly what they wish to do with Muslims over here.."

No inconsistency here Pete, just a difference in knowledgeability about the basic tenets of the Islamic doctrine. Those tenets are fundamentally opposed to universal human rights. Of course you might argue that these rights aren't universal and but a "Western" invention in the first place, but then you would de facto turn basic rights into privileges for people who just happen to live in the West. Are you sure that's not the position you'll end up defending, maybe even to your own surprise?
You seem to condemn the violation of human rights far away, but then you somehow turn apologetic when Islam brings those violations right next to your backyard, backing them up with threats of violence. Doesn't that seem just slightly inconsequential to you, not even a little bit? Are you sure it's not just that you're afraid and impressed by the apparent ease with which some Muslims in our cities resort to violence to protect their belief system from insult, as they perceive it?

Back to the alleged schizophrenia. I don't see it. Wouldn't you agree that Islamization is a global phenomenon and that opposing the totalitarian doctrine of sharia-supremacists doesn't stop at national borders? For any civilized human being anywhere on this globe, doesn't it testify to a sound opposition to tyranny (instead of schizophrenia) when one is appalled both by the merciless persecution of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia as well as the brutal assassination of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sag.

I am not asking for 'discrimination', but for "reciprocity", quite something else I think.

you can't deal with the most perfidious regimes & (religious/political) leaders on earth by giving them gifts: they should feel our fist, they should know we don't take their shit, it's the only language they understand.

@ pvdh

1) It is heartening to see that 'ethical Pete' is still following the Brussels Journal.  TBJ provides only a small counterweight to the naive-leftism of the mass media and the stifling orthodoxy surrounding you. 

2) On principle, I agree with you that "one has to be consequent" (probably better to say "consistent" in English in this way of phrasing). It would not be wise in principle to copy official discrimination of muslim societies in our own societies.  Both for reasons of morality (a point that Armor and Kappert cannot grasp) and for reasons of preserving liberty for our own posterity (i.e. denying government the power to selectively trample on individual rights and to violate the constitutional commandment of equality FOR CITIZENS before the law ).

3) A couple of points of disagreement:

-- The schizophrenia that you mentioned, while 'real', is not really "funny".  On the contrary, it is tragic, and it originates in the very real mistreatment of nonmuslims in most muslim and muslim-dominated societies.  You are wrong to think that most westerners would "wish to" meet out such treatment to muslims in the West.   And most of those who do are motivated out of a sense of fairness (i.e. in order to achieve better treatment of nonmuslims in muslim countries).  In short, it is a 'reaction', not a 'default' position

-- You seem to reason from a very individualistic standpunt, which goes counter to your general positive disposition for societal welfare.  While the human dignity of the individual citizen should always be the focus of our political philosophy, the existence of cultural group differences and group conflicts is a reality in the world.  If you live in a world in which different groups have very different agendas from your own, you cannot afford the luxury of ignoring these other agendas.  Your own society's present (and certainly, future) 'welfare' depends on it.  For example, if a large percentage of muslims in the West do not show any clear concern for the treatment meeted out to nonmuslims in their countries-of-origin, then their presence cannot possibly be 'good' for your society's welfare in the future.  In order for your society to survive as a 'free' one, it is imperative that the bulk of your population remain imbued with a deep sense of fairness (of equality in law for all everywhere).

-- Freedom of religion can mean different things. It should mean that people can believe whatever they want to believe.  In a civilised democracy it cannot possibly mean that people should be allowed to DO whatever they want.  There should be freedom of religion within a constitutional legal framework for all citizens.  If your 'religion' tells you that you have a right to physically 'control' your wife, then your religion is incompatible with a democratic free society where all citizens are supposed to be equal before the law.   It is like with the freedom-of-speech debate.  One must distinguish between speech (ideas, 'religion', etc..) and deeds/actions.  There cannot be unfettered freedom of actions.

-- You mentioned "...freedom of faith (and in a broader perspective culture)".   There is no sensible reason why Europeans would want freedom of "culture" in Europe.  If it took several centuries for much of Europe to achieve a broadly democratic culture, at enormous cost - and let's not forget, history teaches that on several occasions it required American intervention to preserve this - then it would be foolish to tolerate cultural behavior patterns that are inimical to the maintenance of a democratic culture in the future.  Instead of 'freedom of culture' Europe should insist in preserving its own broadly democratic culture, and defend vigorously democratic individual rights for all its citizens. 

3) To sum up, I agree with you that Europe should defend equality of all citizens before the law.  At the same time, I belief it imperative that Europe be very careful about who specifically it gives citizenship to.  It should integrate and assimilate immigrants as individuals; it should not open up its own 'culture' to a free-for-all competition between competing and conflicting group values.  And yes, Europe should insist on 'reciprocity' in international relations.  You do not gain genuine 'respect' from other 'cultures'  by acting as a free doormat to them.        

This is sharia-law, a rule that is maybe 1300 years old: non-muslims can't talk in public about their inferior faith, its a part of their oppression and humiliation as a punishment for their refusal of islam. All contemporary islamic countries keep this principle and this specific rule alive, there is no exception. In Marocco this rule is even offical: No. 220 of the penal code. In Turkey this is not official but the (local) authorities keep it very much alive, many cases like this are to be found in Turkey.

Time to give muslims an equal treatment: restrict the spread of religious literature & the building of mosques & religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.