Briefly, in the weeks before the UK parliament considers making incitement of religious hatred a crime, a major UK gallery refuses to show a piece of art because it may offend Muslims. (Incidentally the art is rubbish IMHO but that's not what this thread is about)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ts/4281958.stm

God Is Great consists of a large sheet of glass and copies of the Koran, the Bible and Judaism's Talmud that have been cut apart. The pieces are mounted on either side of the glass to make it appear that they are embedded in it.
Latham was angered by the decision and said that the work, made 10 years ago, was "not offensive to anybody". "It shows that all religious teaching comes from the same source, whatever name you give to it," he told BBC News.
Now, the first point here is that the sentiment the artist says his piece expresses is perfectly unobjectionable. Indeed, if it can be criticised at all it is for being bland and uninteresting. Sure, you may not agree with him, but he has a right to say it. He's not saying religion is rubbish, he's not saying Islam is a primitive belief, he's trying to illustrate his view that it all comes from one source. He is doing it in an artwork rather than, say, an interview, but that is simply one way amongst many to make a point.

And yet:

The London gallery removed Latham's piece God Is Great, concerned in particular that it could upset Muslims following the 7 July London bombings
The mind boggles. Have I missed something here? Is the lesson of all this that if extremists murder innocent people, we respond by worrying that their co-religionists might be upset (as opposed to all the non-muslims in the UK whose views on the chances of being blown up by fanatics are presumably of less concern). And we respond by denying freedom of speech to an artist, not on the basis that he was in fact criticising Islam, but on the basis that others may wrongly perceive him in that way?

In short, the terrorists have won, haven't they? Apparently I live in a country which is prepared to put the (catagorically wrong, in this case) concerns of a minority above the rights of free speech and the interests of the majority?

What the hell is happening here?