Hypocritical and patronizing

Every time an inflammatory anti-Islam action is committed, the world boils over. And every time the situation presents itself, the West (US and EU) persists in its hypocrisy and its patronizing stance toward the Muslims of the world.
The previous statement might need some justification so I’ll attempt to do that. Why do I say hypocrisy? It is stating the obvious at this point, however it appears it still needs to be said since many people insist on this argument that is freedom of expression. The reality is that these tired slogans about the sanctity of freedom of expression just don’t cut it anymore. These catchphrases that masquerade as values have been exposed over and over again as the political tool of control they really are. If you insult or offend Jews (a task far easier than offending Muslims by the way) you are an anti-Semite, a Holocaust denier, or a revisionist which of course can lead to imprisonment and losing your position in, say, a university. If you offend homosexuals you are open to legal action. Even if you offend the British Army over the civilians killed in Afghanistan you can be legally pursued and convicted.
Freedom of speech doesn’t seem to cover such issues in the West. When it comes to Islam though, they suddenly remember the holy notion of unfettered free speech, which begs the question: Is there really such a thing as unbridled free speech? I don’t believe it is a matter of much debate among Muslims or non-Muslims that freedom of expression is a must. Yes, the freedom to express opinions, the freedom to criticize public figures and policies, the freedom of scholarship, the freedom of peaceful dissent are the life of healthy societies.
In fact, most respected persons who fought for freedom of speech throughout history, fought for the former ideals and rights. But can we really conceive of something called “the right to lie”? It just doesn’t seem right does it? Because we all understand that there is no such thing as the “right” to do harm or evil. You can certainly go ahead and do it, but it’s not a right, and there will be consequences.
A “right” is always something good, high and absolutely beneficial (like the right to worship or the right to a fair trial), never something low or harmful. Maybe the confusion stems from mistaking the right to do something with the ability to do it. I can certainly swear at someone or hit them, I physically can, but I would be a lunatic to claim that I have the right to do that. Come to think of it, some very young children go through that phase of thinking they have the right to take whatever they want or hit whoever they want, but it’s always a phase to grow out of. Sadly some don’t.
Nonetheless, it seems that the American constitution, European constitutions, the International Covenant for civil and political rights, and the declaration of human rights all agree on this point: That no such thing as unlimited free expression can exist, and there are always constraints of security (though that can be grossly abused), social and moral order, and protection of reputations and rights of others.
Many Westerners understand this distinction very well, and openly say so. In fact, I suspect many selective defenders of free speech when it comes to such films as “Innocence of Muslims” understand this very well too and deliberately choose their unjust stance for various reasons. Someone should tell them though, no one buys it.
To get back to the opening statement, perhaps the second part of it deserves clarification. Why do I say the West patronizes the Muslims? I think most Muslims (and many non-Muslims and Westerners) sense that underneath all this Western outrage and bafflement at Muslims’ reactions to such a movie (not to condone all the reactions) is a persistent theme and covert (and in many cases overt) message in most Western discourse regarding Muslims: We are the model you should follow, may I say religiously, if you hope to become developed progressive societies. Our values, our worldview, our definition of freedom, our concept of religion is your template. It is the standard we measure you against, and it is the standard you must measure yourselves by. Does that seem like a progressive, tolerant and liberal stance to take O’ wise and tolerant ones? “We are the measure…” Sounds to me like you are replacing religion with your ideology, and anyone who doesn’t adhere to this new contrived religion is a heretic. Least of all he is an irrational being who needs to be “enlightened.” But I ask you this: Is it at least conceivable to you that some people, some societies, some nations, actually don’t want your model? That they find fault in it? That they would rather go it alone and come up with their own model? Food for thought, huh?