are universal." Rose also rejected the "misplaced sensitivity" that "is being used by tyrants and fanatics to justify murder and silence criticism," and deplored the West's "lack of clarity on these issues," which led some people to argue "that Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen and Kurt Westergaard bear a certain amount of responsibility for their fate. They don't understand that by doing so they tacitly endorse attacks on dissenting voices in parts of the world where no one can protect them." In March 2009, Rose spoke in Oslo, and described the Norwegian debate on free speech as "politically correct," less "open, direct, and coarse" than in Denmark. Because many Norwegian commentators cherish the idea of their country as a peacemaker, he argued, they hold back to avoid creating unpleasantness. In April 2009, Rose spoke at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Rose said that Islam expert Bernard Lewis had told him that the cartoon crisis marked "the first time Muslims [had tried] to impose Islamic law on non-Muslim countries." He also said, "There's a problem with Muslims in Europe and it must be dealt with – but limiting freedom of expression is not the solution." He further commented: "There are those who viewed the cartoons that I published as a form of incitement, but I don't think a statement should be measured by the response it yields, especially if the response is irrational and stupid." He also stated that "There was a time after the crisis that I had to take extra precautions, but that is in the past. I never felt threatened – or that I have to be silent." Tavshedens Tyranni In 2011, five years to the day after the cartoons were first published in Jyllands-Posten, they were republished in Denmark in Rose's book Tavshedens Tyranni (Tyranny of Silence). The Norwegian publisher that bought the rights to the book described it as "a 500-page collection of essays about free speech and its boundaries." A reviewer in the Norwegian magazine Minerva commented that "one cannot help being extremely impressed by the way he has handled the pressure." His main point, wrote the reviewer, is that "in a liberal democracy no individual or group can demand special treatment in the free exchange of words." For Rose, "freedom of speech is not a Western value, but a global value." When Rose's book was about to come out,