There is a debate here that is worth exploring.
The grotesque murder of people for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohamed is undoubtedly wrong. Most people, Muslims included, find those acts barbaric and reprehensible.
However those cartoons were offensive to many Muslims and perhaps deliberately so.
The debate is whether, in a free country with the right of freedom of speech, it is right to intentionally cause offense.
In the West we have a long tradition of lampooning, ridiculing and belittling our politicians, religious leaders and celebrities. Despite the fact that this causes offense to the targets of these lampoons and their followers.
We hold this right to be sacrosanct and a tenet of freedom of speech which is the basis of a free society and our democracy. This freedom, tolerance and democracy is why so many want to come and live here.
However, out of respect for our Muslim minority at what is a sensitive time, taking account of their particular sensitivity in this area, would it not be judicious to moderate this right instead of being inflammatory?
On one hand we have a group of people who are adamant that enough is enough and a point needs to be made; freedom of speech is non-negotiable. We need to publish whatever we want with impunity. Threats of violence will not dissuade us. It is a right.
On the other hand we have a group of devoutly religious people who feel angered, threatened and blamed. They feel they are under attack and grouped in with the barbaric thugs who have misused their religion, but they are also extremely offended and upset.
Are we presenting the Islamists an excuse? Are we fuelling more converts to extremism?
Or are we standing firm in the face of violence and showing we will not be cowed?
What are your views?
