Martin Scicluna’s eulogy on freedom of expression (March 23) contains certain ambiguities.

On the one hand he states that “the freedom to worship who we want go right to the heart of Western democratic values and civilisation” and “freedom of expression is not an absolute (and) carries rights as well as responsibilities”. On the other hand, he concludes that “free speech means being prepared to have your beliefs ridiculed and your sensibilities offended”.

Scicluna seems to put no limits to freedom of expression when he emphatically states that “freedom of speech does not mean a thing if we don’t also defend it for those who offend, rile and outrage. We need more provocation not less”.

In a world full of hatred, violence and intolerance, how can provocation and offensive language help bring about more justice and peace?

Where should the ‘red-line’be drawn when defending freedom of expression?

If the two basic principleson which democratic societies should be built are thedignity of the human person and the common good, why shouldone take recourse to offensivelanguage and satire withthe result of inculcating hatred and violence?

Are we not dignified enough to expose our views withoutfeeling the need of offending someone else?

The Council of Europe defines hate speech as “(any form) of expression which spreads, incites, promotes or justifies hatred based on intolerance”.

Criticising fearlessly those who behave badly does not necessary imply we need more provocation, as Scicluna maintains.

I am sure responsible people who have at heart the dignity of the human person and the good of society at large do not need to have recourse to provocation or outrage to prove one’s point. Yes, freedom of expression has its limits and laws guarding its abuse, like vilification of religion, should be safeguarded.