Causing offence should not be confused with incitement. To this some will argue that surely we should be aware that those who take offence will respond in very agitated ways. If the agitation is foreseeable, then it is incitement. This is a very poor argument. It makes the definition of incitement entirely dependent on how violent the other party can work himself up to be. The more violent his response, they more he is likely to get his way and the freedom of the speaker curbed. In the final analysis, such a position effectively rewards violence. Hardly a good way to build a peaceful society.

This is related to the problem with the phrase, "expressing an opinion responsibly". It seems to suggest that if free expression causes offence and possible backlash then that freedom must be curtailed in the name of "responsibility". This woolly-headedness was exactly what the Danish newspaper wanted to contest. What is the meaning of freedom, if that freedom cannot in practical terms be exercised due to various forms of censorship? What is the use of a title deed to a piece of land if you are never allowed to take possession of it?

Thirdly, the Straits Times said that the Danish newspaper was doing "violence to the concept" of free speech. One can easily argue that imposing broad burdens of responsibility and non-incitement does even greater violence of the concept. Fourthly, the Straits Times felt that the governments should act against the newspaper for being "downright dangerous to the national interest". Jyllands-Posten -- and it appears from opinion polls, 75% of Danes supporting them -- could have felt that making a stand to defend the cherished principle of free speech was very much in the national interest. Is it typically Singaporean that we only define "national interest" in economic and trade terms?

On the TV news Tuesday night, 31 January, Channel News Asia reported that the Saudi government called on European governments "to protect religions." Why should religion be privileged? Why should the beliefs of some curtail the freedoms of others, especially non-believers? Who decides what constitutes a religion and what does not, such that one set of beliefs is privileged and another set is not? What if a Christian sect said the use of the cross for non-Christian purposes caused serious offence to them, and demanded that the entire world stopped using the "+" sign for addition? Are we supposed to comply? It is one thing for a person to live by his beliefs, e.g. a vegetarian who chooses to forgo meat or a member of the clergy that takes a vow of celibacy. We have to respect that person's choice. It's another thing for someone, or an organised mob, to insist that others too must abide by his/their rules. It's even worse when people with a set of beliefs call upon governments to use governmental power to impose those rules upon everybody else.

The Danish Prime Minister was right to stand his ground.

Was it all necessary? you might ask. Couldn't the children's book that started everything have been published without drawings of the Prophet? Perhaps, but it's not my book or yours, and thus, it's not my decision or yours to make whether Kare Bluitgen should have done without. (Personally, I am quite mystified why he didn't think such illustrations would reduce the sales of his book, especially to Muslim
families.... but then, it's his book) Couldn't Jyllen-Posten, the Danish newspaper, have written about Bluitgen's difficulties without commissioning the 12 cartoons, and still made its point just as effectively?

Again, perhaps it could. But at what point do we stop complaining about the erosion of freedom, and actually seize it to prove a point? Do we choose paralysis or action to defend our freedom? Perhaps, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born member of theDutch Parliament said, it is necessary.

The protest demonstrations in the Middle East, and by Muslim communities in Europe too, only prove the point that believers in free and secular societies need to be alert to creeping censorship from religious extremists, the very point that Jyllands-Posten set out to highlight. What are the demonstrators calling for? They are calling for censorship. Not because they have been injured in any measurable way, though some may argue that such cartoons reinforce the prejudices against Muslims that is manifested in other, concrete ways. To that, the reply was given by none other than a Muslim editor in Amman, Jordan. Jihad Momani wrote in his newspaper Shihan, "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?" (However, he was also reckless enough to reprint 3 of the cartoons. In Jordan! He was sacked before the day was over, and arrested the following day, accused of insulting religion under Jordan's press and publications law. Whether it was because of his words, or his decision to print the cartoons, is not clear. Source: BBC)

Yet this only reminds us of the very reason why the West is leagues ahead in cultural vibrancy and creativity. The freedom to challenge, which necessarily causes offence to some who embrace the status quo, is fundamental to intellectual, economic and socio-political progress. Calling pet ideas into question is essential if we are to use human intelligence in any meaningful way. Of course, Muslim groups are free not to purchase any goods from the Nordic countries and make their displeasure known; and they are free to hold as many protest demonstrations as they wish. But without a better intellectual foundation, the uproar only shows it up for what it is: bullying.

Apparently burning modern flags made of polyester is dangerous. Pfft...As if that would stop a good ol' flag burning session.