As backlash around the world over the decision to publish cartoons considered offensive to many Muslims in a Danish newspaper continues to grow, many in Europe are expressing their criticism of the handling of the affair by both the press and politicians. Not only has the cartoon-printing editor of Le Soir been fired, the French embassy in Algeria has distanced itself from the cartoons. The Finnish Foreign Minister Errki Tuomioja and the Swedish Minister President Göran Persson have criticized their fellow Scandinavian Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen for having refused early offers of diplomatic dialogue with envoys from Muslim countries. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson reprimanded Europe's press for pouring "oil on the fire" by reprinting the cartoons, and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble defended press freedom but said the media has to deal with the situation it has created. Critical voices are now being heard from far beyond Europe's borders too, as UN General Secretary Kofi Annan, former US president Bill Clinton, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have lambasted the decision to run the cartoons.

It's worth noting that a country like France with its difficult relationship with the Islamic world is being one of the most cautious about the whole affair. The Danes, once known for their tolerant culture, have suddenly been singled out as being at the center of what some see as Europe's increasing "Islamophobia". But Danish attitudes to foreigners have changed dramatically in recent years. Whereas the country was the one of the first nations to accept homosexual unions, it has also created unusually restrictive laws that ban marriage of Danes to foreigners under 24 years of age.

On Friday, German papers continue to struggle with the aftermath of cartoon affair, which some see as needless provocation while others believe is now about protecting a fundamental right to free speech in Europe.

A commentator for the tabloid Bild, known for its pictures of naked women rather than its strong moral stands, writes an open letter to the Danish cartoonists explaining that satire has to have its limits. "Our western society is about to laugh itself to death. There are jokes about AIDS, about alcoholics, about doctors, about the hereafter," complains the paper. "Religion is a discussion with the hereafter. Religion is the only hope that we have when we die. Muhammad. Jesus. Our universe did not arise by accident. When we die, we want to travel on. As Christians, as Muslims, as Buddhists -- I want to travel on and not be laughed at like Muhammed."

But the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, holds fast to the theme of free speech: "Obviously very impressed by the terrorist threat, some are now much more ready to apologize than during the days of (author Salman) Rushdie, thereby injuring the principles of freedom of expression, including those of satirists." It would be detrimental, continues the paper, if "political correctness" were understood to create a quasi-legal protection for religions in general or particular. The FAZ reminds its readers of another group of Muslims important in Europe "For many years, critical Muslims have been fleeing to Europe, in order to do their thinking, writing or research free from fear. For their sake too Europe must remain steadfast." The paper writes this point is confirmed by reports that a Jordanian weekly which urged its audience "to be reasonable" by reprinting the cartoons to render them harmless has had its editor fired and might be sanctioned by the government.

The leftist Die Tageszeitung on the other hand is glad to see Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in the hot seat: "Denmark's prime minister, who just a few weeks ago didn't want to receive ambassadors from the Islamic world in this matter, has now given in quickly. Nobody can believe that this is about a few unsold consumer goods in Arabia or Pakistan. Much more, Copenhagen has been impressed by the fact that Denmark has been declared a rogue state all over the Islamic world, with bitter mass demonstrations, with the burning of flags, and the recall of ambassadors. The self-satisfied low profile of the xenophobic Danish policies behind the shield of the EU and the US has found a sudden end." The paper concludes that the Danish participation in the Iraq war and the stationing of its troops there are suddenly receiving new attention."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung tries to synthesize all these concerns by writing that the globalized society we live in dictates people show more respect for other cultures and creeds. The paper points out that there was no uproar when Dante placed Muhammad in Hell in his 14th century work The Divine Comedy, but that was at time when Christian Europe considered the Muslim world the enemy. "The bluster surrounding the Danish Muhammad caricatures shows that the world has completely changed. It makes clear that the time of simple truths is over," opines the paper. "Freedom of the press, opinion and satire are non-negotiable." But many of the problems including the latest controversy could be solved "by healthy common sense, respect for the feelings of others, good taste and old-fashioned politeness."

Switzerland's Neue Zürcher Zeitung shows clear sympathy for the cartoonists while explaining that freedom of speech is not absolute vis-a-vis the right to human dignity. "One doesn't insult a Muslim if one poses the question of whether al-Qaida's justification of terror is at odds with the Muslim tradition." The paper concedes that political wisdom and the interests of world peace would have called for a more earnest treatment of Muhammad, but characterizes the reactions in the Arab and Muslim world as out of proportion. "If only the Arab masses would bring the same strong engagement in the defense of their own fundamental rights, which in all too many cases are trampled on by their own governments."

The Austrian Der Standard lampoons apologetic tendencies in Europe. "If there was only freedom of opinion in which feelings don't get hurt, then one wouldn't need this freedom of opinion to begin with," the paper opines, pointing out that in the US Supreme Court, "which doesn't take fundamental democratic rights lightly," there is a court tradition in which even the defamation of entire groups can be admissible in the interests of robust public debate. "An alternative to this would be to adjust the humor of newspapers strictly according to the sensibilities of religious authorities. What a prospect!"