James Taranto at Opinion Journal missed something today I think and he doesn't often miss anything.

He noted two stories in different papers speaking about arresting, detaining, or otherwise holding a head of state when said head of state arrives in a particular country:

 Arrested Developments

"Those who recognize the Iranian threat are left with the law-enforcement option. Police Commissioner Kelly, District Attorney Morgenthau, or any enterprising federal prosecutor or G-Man has a perfect opportunity at hand to seize Mr. Ahmadinejad and to hold him as a material witness or even as a suspect."–editorial, New York Sun, Sept. 19

"Employees of Ankara's Directorate General for Religious Affairs, or Diyanet, presented a petition to the [Turkish] Justice Ministry asking it to launch a probe into the pope's remarks and to detain him when he arrives, the Anatolian news agency said. They said the pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed."–Reuters, Sept. 19

I think what he missed was the last sentence of the second quote above:

They said the pontiff had violated Turkish laws upholding freedom of belief and thought by 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. (emphasis mine)

How free is the freedom of belief and thought if 'insulting' Islam and the Prophet Mohammed are not covered by such freedom? How is it that the Head of State of the Vatican, Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, speaking in Germany can violate the laws of Turkey?

Granted, the emperor he was quoting was from Constantiople which is modern day Istanbul, but still…

If your laws uphold freedom of belief and thought then those laws should cover all belief and thought, not only belief and thought that you agree with.

Advertisements