Difficult to find in the air sector crisisBut evolution does not take place as this5 x number of hours paid gross monthly pay 15and then hand make its weapons on the ground5 of the capital is not presented to the AssemblyBut the schedule is tight for the public authoritiesThe English terms then disappear suddenlyThe 787 still boasts more than 800 orders against 483 for the A350The strength of the carbon it is measuredFor Allianz this transformation is a simple media coupNot so long ago, it could be said that there remained more than taboo, at least in Europe. The process started in the age of enlightenment had then reached the stage where "everything is permitted". There was more apparent limitations, especially in the arts, to denounce what could offend. While two generations ago, most of the censors who did not simply prevent young people from seeing certain films, but forbade some books.
Is there any limit Outside Europe, the mentality of "anything goes" was never really accepted. Europe also has limits. The historian David Irving is always held in Austria for denying the Holocaust. It is, obviously, a special case. The denial of an indisputable reality may be originally new crimes.
However, the answer to the eternal question: "what is truth" is not always clear. Is this a good thing to impose on the Turkey the recognition of the Armenian genocide as a condition for its accession to the European Union Theories of the evolution of Darwin are reliable enough to banish our schools other theories of the origins Those who are interested in freedom of expression constantly questioned his limits.
It is in this context that we could attend the intrusion of the taboos of islam in the progressive world, essentially non-Islamic. With the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for the "Satanic Verses", the murder of a nun in Somalia following the speech given by Pope Benedict XVI in Regensburg, and deprogramming at a Berlin Opera staged in the Mozart's "Idomeneo" with the heads of religious founders Muhammad, we have seen violence and intimidation used to defend a religion's taboos.
This situation raises questions which the defenders of the Enlightenment were difficult to answer. It is desirable and may be necessary to meet the people who have their own beliefs to preserve an enlightened world. On the other hand, the violent reactions to unwelcome views cannot be accepted. Those who argue that suicide bombers express understandable grudges have themselves given their freedom. Self-censorship is worse than censorship, because it voluntarily sacrifices freedom.
This means that we must defend Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists and the friends of "Idomeneo", whether we like them or not. Those who disagree can have use of all instruments of public debate and critical discourse has a wide ideas community. In addition, nothing requires us to buy such or such book to listen to such as Opera. Our world would be well fade if everything what is likely to offend a particular group could not be expressed! A multicultural society approving the taboos of his different groups have little of substance to discuss.
Recent responses to the expression of opinions offensive for some are bode well for the future of freedom. It is as if the world was again swept by a wave of darkness. In these reactions, it is important to defend the right of everyone to express his opinion, even if it is in opposition with ours. It is one of the principles of freedom.
"Idomeneo" must therefore be played and published Rushdie. Publish or degrading caricatures for the followers of Muhammad (or Christ, for that matter) is a matter of judgment, or even of the taste. I might not do it, but I would nevertheless defend the right of someone who chooses to do so. For incidents such as those that took place recently, the need to establish a dialogue between religions is questionable. Open public debate seems more appropriate than conciliation. The benefits of enlightened discourse are too precious to become marketable. Our task now is to defend these benefits.
