David T over at Harry’s Place has a great entry on Amr Khaled, an Egyptian preacher whose views are less than pleasant. Recently our embattled allies in Denmark engaged in some dialogue with Amr Khaled. According to The New York Times:
Mr. Khaled sought to emphasize that “we are here to build bridges for dialogue,” and suggested that a continuing boycott of Danish goods in Arab countries could stop if Danes and their government reached out with initiatives like help for small businesses, or health care.
That does rather sound like, give us some cash and we will lay off. What of the alleged offence to Islam and 1.3 billion Muslims? Or is it just a tradeable? Is using an alleged act of blasphemy as a means of levering some cash out of the embattled Danes perhaps not entirely respectful to the allegedly offended religion?
By contrast, you know where you stand with the Multan District Bar Association in Pakistan (thanks to Marcus at Harry’s Place who spotted this on Tim Blair).
Andrew Apostolou (about to slip into natty jim jams).