Freedom of expression is a two-way street

In his weekly column titled Idomeneo, Mad Duchesses And The Prophet, Kenneth Zammit Tabona's admonitions towards Muslims over the recent furore regarding incidents such as the Danish caricatures and the German opera titled Idomeneo seem to be somewhat contradictory. It is no secret that many a Western liberal has defended the works of art that were a source of controversy due to their offensive nature towards Muslims, but to understand the much touted concept of freedom of expression in the name of which such controversial expressions of artistic freedom were defended, one has to first understand the universality of freedom of expression.

Supporters of the controversial Danish cartoons of Islam's prophet and the opera Idomeneo correctly point out that the freedom to express oneself is not only a fundamental human right but also one of the bedrock values of Western democracy. In this light, it seems rather ironic, possibly even hypocritical that such individuals would begrudge offended Muslims the right to protest and condemn what they view as the denigration of their faith. After all, if it is possible to insult the founder of a religion in the name of free speech, then it should also be equally acceptable to condemn such insults in the name of freedom of expression. If the freedom of expression that is rightly considered a fundamental of democracy includes the right to blaspheme, it would be inconceivable for it to exclude the right to protest blasphemy, at least by non-violent means.

Mr Zammit Tabona writes that "If they opt to live among us in the West, Muslims must accept and respect our customs and our culture just as we would theirs had we opted to live among them in their own countries". But to understand the overly simplistic nature of this assertion, let the tables be turned for a moment. Imagine a hypothetical situation where a newspaper from an Islamic nation were to publish offensive caricatures of Christianity's prophets. (Of course, given Islam's reverence of all Biblical prophets, such a scenario would probably be unlikely, but let this fact be set aside momentarily.) One would have reason to doubt if the likes of Mr Zammit Tabona would have defended such gross disrespect towards Christianity on the part of Muslims in the name of freedom of expression. It would have been much more likely that he would have cited such an incident as further proof of the intolerance that he and others often accuse Muslims of harbouring.

So, the take home message from the controversy stemming from both the Danish cartoons and German opera in question is that freedom of expression, together with tolerance is a two-way street. One certainly hopes that respect for the rights of individuals to express themselves, even if in an offensive manner, does not come at the expense of the equally valid right of others to protest what they consider offensive. More pertinently, one hopes that the right to express oneself does not come at the expense of the two-way tolerance between Westerners and Muslims that is sorely needed in today's turbulent times.