why tolerate the hate?

can anyone find a topic sentence in this op-ed? Is the point that Blair has done something daring? Or that he is a neo-mccarthyite? or that the british are too pc? or that muslims are cartoon-like villains? wait, wait, i think i've got it. the main point is that she thinks lawmakers and diplomats should work on multiculturalism/anti-terrorism legislation from the perspective of individuality. right. but, my fair readers, "We know the dangers of taking Islam literally," and "By now we should understand the peril of taking tolerance literally." so it seems that we should value individuality, especially the individuality of a canadian-indian muslim lesbian journalist who, without any kind of education in islam, knows what the trouble with islam today is, but we shouldn't value it so much that we allow EVerybody to say what they think.

sure, anti- hate incitement laws make a lot of sense to me. but why dont we ask the a question that should come first and then give it an honest answer - why are people (white people, brown people, diplomats, revolutionaries, boy-kings) willing to advocate violence at all? i'll give you a hint: its not because they hate freedom.

like most things that i've read of ms. manji's, this doesnt really make any sense. the op-ed itself doesn't make much sense, but putting it in the context of her 'work' on islam in general makes it even more ridiculous. she's asking rhetorically why we should tolerate hate, but herself makes a living out of validating bigotry and hatred of islam. she's not stupid. she knows exactly what she's doing. which is making the moe-nay.

From the NYTimes:
August 9, 2005
Why Tolerate the Hate?
By IRSHAD MANJI
Toronto