The press and public opinion in Europe remain divided over the inflammatory cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohamed, writes Eva Dadrian Politicians and the Muslim Council of Britain, the umbrella organisation of mainstream Muslim groups in Britain, have urged police to prosecute militant protesters who are inciting violence against Westerners over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohamed, while moderate Muslim organisations worldwide have expressed their concern about the extensive and violent reaction the cartoons have provoked. Libération (5 February, 2006) writes that many of these organisations have broken their silence to highlight the risks of "the entire issue being hijacked by the extremists". The article explains that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which groups 57 Muslim countries, has "condemned the actions of the Islamists who have attacked the diplomatic premises of countries whose media has reproduced the cartoons". But does the right to freedom of expression legitimise offending the religious sentiments and beliefs of others? Can the defence of freedom of speech justify such offence to Muslims? This question was raised by a number of editors and columnists in Europe. While an article in Le Monde (3 February, 2006) posed the question: "Cartoons: to show or not to show?", the principal cartoonist of La Tribune de Genève questioned whether or not it was appropriate or even possible to laugh at everything . In the same issue, La Tribune published another article explaining that the whole affair is nothing but a further illustration of the clash between "a secular culture like ours and a culture where religion is at the heart of everything". The notion of the "clash of civilisations" was also mentioned in an article in Germany's Der Spiegel (1 February, 2006) which said that the outrage "has become a global cause célèbre ". It is well known that many Muslims consider drawings or paintings of the Prophet Mohamed to be at best problematic and at worst taboo, and educated and articulate editors and journalists in the Western media are expected to be knowledgeable of such sensitivities. Yet, ignoring all these considerations, the cartoons were re-printed in January in a number of newspapers in Norway, Germany and France. Doubtless, the cartoons were blasphemous and inciting to prejudice and racism. The incident has highlighted the fact that the right to freedom of speech is associated with an obligation to not offend and not to be tactless. If our commitment to stand and fight for free speech is important, our position to oppose racial or religious discrimination should be the same, if not more. In January 2006, four months after the publication of the blasphemous cartoons, Jyllands-Posten published an open letter "Honourable fellow citizens of the Muslim world" in Danish and in Arabic, defending its decision to publish the cartoons and explaining that it was "an initiative taken as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark". The editors went to say that in their opinion "the 12 drawings were sober" and that they "were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims, for which we apologise". For some, the open letter amounted to too little too late. As Mona Omar, Egypt's ambassador to Denmark told Politiken (3 February, 2006): "protesters in the Muslim world will not be satisfied until Jyllands-Posten issues a 'clear apology' for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed" So was it really an instance of a clash between two cultures or yet another form of outrageous provocation when Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, ran 12 cartoons of Prophet Mohamed last September? And which of the two issues, outrage or freedom of speech, has become the real cause célèbre in this affair?
