This morning I was in the gym so I picked up a copy of The Age newspaper (the gym has been giving out free copies for a few months now). I turned to the editorial to find out what the stand of the paper was regarding the recent cartoon rage. Just in case you have been away from Planet Earth for the past few days, a newspaper in Denmark known as the Jyllands-Posten had, back in September 2005, published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad in various caricatures, mainly as a terrorist or even the patron saint of terrorists. There were pockets of protests then but when these cartoons were re-published first in Norway then in other European countries, the protests escalated. The Age editorial sounded very measured and reasonable. It wasn’t going to publish the cartoons. It asserted the freedom to publish them but said it exercised such freedom against doing so.

The reason many papers decided to publish them is precisely because they have been threatened against doing so. It sounds like such threats demanded a response to show they have not been cowed. Did The Age cower?

There was then someone on 3AW who riled against The Age. He obviously thought they were cowed. He pointed out that the desire to maintain and build good relations across cultures did not prevent them from publishing cartoons which offended other religions and communities in the past. A few listeners then called to point out specific instances when for example, Mother Theresa was ridiculed in a cartoon, and when Jews were similarly ridiculed. Where was The Age’s stance then in so far as good relations across cultures were concerned?

This person then went on to point out that Middle Eastern newspapers have for years published cartoons which ridiculed Judaism, so they had no moral rights to now protest against this otherwise obscure Danish newspaper (Jyllands-Posten).

I sincerely believe there are times when rights and principals have to be put aside. It is all relative of course. Issues such as whether these are fundamental rights and principals, and whether the particular instances requiring temporary shelving of these rights and principals are instances going to the heart of their exercise.

When one is confronted with threats against life itself, can the right to free speech not be defended by acts which do not further provoke the source of the threat? Or must such threats necessarily require the very act which defies them? Can the right to free speech not be defended by acts other than the publication of these cartoons? Is the restraint against publication necessarily a defeat to free speech? Is that necessarily bad?

I am often chastised by my wife for speaking up. Yet in this instance I believe the right to free speech must give way to the priority of reaching out and healing broken relationships. Maybe it is a cultural thing. I cannot see how defending a right such as right to free speech can take precedence over the restoration of harmonious relationships. Maybe some would argue such harmony could not last as long as they are based on threats and the inability to accept the rights of others to make their own choices would make for a one-way and unbalanced relationship. It is therefore important that rights such right to free speech be defended to establish the point that the right to make choices must take precedence in a robust relationship.

The debate has been going on for donkey’s ears and I guess they would go on. My inclination is that given the current fragile state of affairs, compromise is the order of the day. To that end, restrain and a temporary shelving of rights is necessary, perhaps on both sides of the fence. Like the Paul McCartney song said, can we not stop for a moment and smoke the pipes of peace?