The Economist justifies the crackdown in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain

"A warrant for his arrest was first issued in 2009 after he said that if Saudi Shias were not allowed to “live with dignity”, the eastern provinces should secede from the kingdom. Such talk is particularly inflammatory, since most of Saudi Arabia’s oilfields are in the east."  Look at this.  Would the Economist ever consider any of the speeches of Syrian opposition figures to be "inflammatory"? There is no inflammatory speech against repression.  And then:  "Sheikh Nimr told his followers in a posting on YouTube to celebrate Prince Nayef’s death."  No, in fact in the speech in question he merely said that he understood why some Saudis may celebrate his death.  And on Bahrain the magazine also seems to support the crackdown:  "The arrest of the Saudi sheikh came two weeks after Bahrain’s Saudi-backed security forces wounded another popular Shia cleric, Ali Salman, who was raked with birdshot as he addressed a clutch of flower-holding protesters outside his home. This peaceful gathering was unlicensed, so it was technically a crime. But the sheikh’s shooting was likewise a response to a speech he had made a few days earlier, when he said that Bahrain’s Shias had yet to display half of their power and could bring thousands onto the streets, dressed for death, at the drop of a fatwa."