Free speech, religious beliefs and human rights

The letter pictured below was published in response to a "Let's keep the flame of free speech bright" article in the Amnesty UK magazine. It is a great example of the well meaning approach of some who actually play into the hands of religious extremists. As supporters of human rights we must defend free speech at all costs. It is a cornerstone of basic rights for all - especially minorities and the oppressed. Juliet Chaplin's letter uses the terms "used responsibly", "common courtesy", "common good with responsibility", "the truth" and "common sense and consideration" as somehow being caveats to free speech. This totally ignores the fact that what is "responsible", "truth" or "common sense" depends on personal views. Free speech is about being able to disagree with opinions even (perhaps especially) if they are deeply help. Otherwise no one can challenge perceived wisdom, majority held or extremist views even though they all need to be discussed openly and freely. I may believe that eating meat is horrific. However, if Juliet or anyone else wants to extol the virtues of vegetarianism then they should be able to do so even if it offends and upsets me. The same goes for religious beliefs. These are beliefs you are choosing to have. It is not the same as your nationality, colour or sexuality which are innate traits that you cannot choose. To attack these is what hate speech actually is. Hate speech is also incitement of violence. It is not hate speech to disagree with the deeply held views of others - religious or otherwise. To be clear, supporters of free speech do not advocate random unsolicited rants in the face of someone who you might disagree with. We are instead talking about the ability to publish articles and cartoons as well as speak in public forums. No one is suggesting we should be able to randomly approach someone in the street and tell them their beliefs are wrong. to that extent I agree with Juliet's "courtesy" comment. Juliet also makes the two comments commonly made by apologists for religious extremism. Firstly, "it is well known that the Prophet must not be depicted". This treats all muslims as one group with unified views on this and other matters of islam. It is not true. There are many faith groups within the Islamic religion who are relaxed about this depiction (for example around 6 million alevi muslims in Turkey). In fact, by playing the homogenous card, Juliet plays into the hands of the extremists. It is islamist extremists who have recently created this idea of any depiction of Mohammad as being so horrific to muslims. We need to resist this as defenders of universal human rights for all. Secondly, Juliet says "religious rights are being trampled on. Several Christians have been persecuted". Total nonsense I'm afraid. Please detail even one case where this is actually so in the UK. The cases referred to are actually cases where Christians have argued that their beliefs should allow them to trample on the human rights on others or generally applied laws. e.g. bakers refusing to bake for homosexuals, bed and breakfast providers refusing to let homosexuals stay and a nurse refusing to conceal her crucifix chain as it was a safety hazard in the hospital. These people are the abusers of universal human rights and we should fight against the bigotry they attempt to promote. Human rights defenders should not help people with certain beliefs impose them on others or receive preferential treatment because of them.