Cartoon Violence part 2

I know I know, the debate is over - television no longer constantly harp on about the cartoons and the rioting has died down. But I noticed this piece in the Guardian primarily because Richard Dworkin was a favourite of my jurisprudence professor at college and his book on abortion and euthanasia (I can't remember the exact title) was our required reading for my course. I remember appreciating his views immensely, although it was a little simplistic and seemed to follow the middle ground. His view was that you could exclude those people who say that abortion is wrong at all times and you could exclude those people who though abortion was ok whenever and look at the majority of people who think abortion is not just an everday event, but that most people think it should be allowed with limits (whether that is at the mother's choice, or only in specific cases such as rape was not relevant). If you did this, you saw that most people agreed that there was something called "Sancity of Life" which every person felt and that it was just a question of balance. It seems pretty simple now but I am sure that the book itself was more complicated. Anyway, this is an interesting piece; again sticking to the middle and, some might say, obvious ground. Notice how he starts by clearly stating that Britain was right not to publish the cartoons...

I also notice now that he is formally a professor at University College London (my old university)..