You’re quite right that the actual violence is in Afghanistan and Lebanon, and the violence would have happened regardless of immigration policy. But there are some crowds in London, for instance, with placards threatening beheadings and bombings in much the same spirit, and I think we can generally agree that threatening violence or promising another July 7 in London is a bit more inflammatory than the cartoons. That is how O’Sullivan collapsed the Muslims in Europe (or England in particular) with the Muslims in the Near and Middle East. The London protests are not showing quite the same degree of incompatibility with the norms of a free society as the mob in Beirut, let’s say, but it does point to a significant chasm between what Westerners generally value and what Muslim immigrants value.

O’Sullivan’s article tried to do too much. He tried to address the controversy itself (and the official Western response to it) while also trying to say what the controversy means for the idea of multiculturalism, and this resulted in giving the impression (which I don’t he intended to give) that he was citing Muslim violence elsewhere to knock down multiculturalism in Europe. Maybe he was, but not in so straightforward a way as “Muslims are rioting over there, so they must want to riot everywhere…”

What I think he meant to say was that the two could be connected in that the violence in Asia points to the potential for real conflict over cultural symbols that could eventually be reproduced in Europe if Muslim immigrants do not assimilate more to Europe than they expect Europe to assimilate to them. What he really was trying to say was that the compartmentalisation of cultures that multicultural “tolerance” produces also creates the potential for a complete breakdown in consensus on basic values, such as free speech, without which our sort of society will ultimately cease to exist.

He has collapsed the intimidation from protesters in Europe into the physical violence of protesters in Asia, which may seem to muddle things a bit. But his basic objection to both makes sense, and the Muslims in Britain threatening violence do tend to support the idea that there is a need for assimilation and integration and a sufficiently limited number of immigrants to make assimilation and integration possible.

O’Sullivan may or may not have it right on immigration generally, but this recent wave of violence isn’t an argument for or against his position.