"To paraphrase Orwell, it is evident that where freedom of expression is concerned: all are equal, but some are more equal than others!"

The recent decision taken by Danish newspapers to reprint one of the offensive cartoons of Prophet Muhammad has re-ignited the popular debate regarding freedom of speech. The move was a knee-jerk response to reports of an alleged plot to kill Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who drew the original caricature satirizing Prophet Muhammad. To add insult to injury, Norwegian, French, German, Dutch and a few other newspapers reprinted the offensive cartoons to ‘show their commitment’ to freedom of expression. The Berlingske Tidende (another mainstream Danish paper) justified re-printing the cartoons, declaring: ”We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend."

It is ironic indeed that the very newspaper – the Jyllands-Posten – which originally printed the offensive cartoons in September 2005 under the guise of ‘freedom of expression’ had refused to print cartoons of Isa (Jesus) [1], peace be upon him, in 2003 in case it caused offence. Given that the newspaper was alert to religious sensibilities being an issue when it was concerning Isa (AS), one might question why cartoons of Muhammad - which evoked passionate reactions in the Islamic world - were printed in the first place, let alone re-printed. The original cartoons resulted in protests whereby over 50 people were killed. Was it really freedom of expression that was being supported? Or was it a cynical and deliberate attempt to re-ignite hostilities?

Freedom of Expression is Not Absolute
Freedom of expression is oft-heralded as a value held in high esteem by the West, yet the West itself places limits on what an individual or organisation is permitted to utter. Free speech is not, and never was meant to be absolute. British citizens are covered by the European Convention on Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression." But it adds that governments may restrict free speech in the interests of national security, to safeguard public safety and for the prevention of crimes.

UK law prohibits speech that incites anti-Semitism, racism and terror. These laws exist in order to safeguard the sensibilities of the society and ensure that law and order is not disturbed. Blasphemy laws also exist in the UK, albeit only in so far as the Church of England is concerned. The film ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ was initially banned in a number of ‘Bible belt states’ across the US. In Germany there is a strict ban on selling copies of Hitler's Main Kampf. Freedom of speech was certainly not supported when British historian David Irving challenged mainstream opinion of the Holocaust. Instead, he was given a three year sentence by an Austrian court. Accordingly, it is evident that there are limits on the ideal of freedom of expression in the West, when this curtailing is done ‘for the greater good’.

Footnotes
[1] ‘Danish Paper Rejected Jesus Cartoons’ (The Guardian)

1 2 3 4