Danish cartoon II: A teddy bear named Muhammad

Gillian Gibbons is an Englishwoman who teaches at Unity School in Sudan. On Sunday, the Sudanese police arrested her on account of blasphemy arising out of her allowing her class to name a teddy bear “Muhammad”.

This has caused a furore of note, with many, including the Muslim Council of Britain, saying that it is an over-reaction to the situation. A seven-year-old class pupil says that when nominations were requested for the naming of the stuffed toy, he put forward his own name — Muhammad. That was the name that was duly selected.

Parents of some of the pupils upon learning of this reported it to the authorities, who duly arrested Gibbons.

Before everyone throws their hands up in despair, we are dealing with a highly sensitive issue in terms of sharia law. The Prophet may not be depicted, and as a teacher, Gibbons must surely have been aware of this.

This brings into play a number of issues.

Where does freedom of speech and freedom of expression end and responsibility to respect the religious beliefs of others begin? Obviously Sudan is, primarily, a Muslim country and in line therewith, surely, entitled to set its own laws. Foreigners must surely be expected to obey them.

Parties, including Muslims, who say that this is a storm in a teacup and that nobody meant offence, do not overwhelm the Sudanese authorities. They intend to prosecute to conclusion.

This has resulted in the “rejection of organised religion” lobby to step up to the plate. Their view: Isn’t it time we got rid of organised religion before it kills and maims any more people?

But can we really say, even now, that blasphemy is a non-starter when there are roughly 1,5-billion Muslims on the planet? If you add the other religions, you are well over half the world’s population.

Can freedom of speech mean freedom to offend the laws of a sovereign country, its people who voted in the laws and their religion?

Where Irving and Griffin were up for debate I was of the firm belief that they should be allowed to speak. If they thereupon broke the laws of the country by, for example, stirring up racial hatred, then they were putting themselves at risk.

Part of the solution, which I would never dare suggest is simple, is that people should be allowed freedom of speech and freedom of expression, subject to their understanding that they are accountable to the laws of the country concerned.

Therefore when Irving elected to speak on Holocaust denial in Austria he was rightfully arrested. He knew the score and elected to proceed.

Of course many felt that his arrest drew far more focus and gave him a warped form of credibility.

Problems, of course, arise when we are of the view that the “host” country’s laws are draconian and simply deny the people any meaningful voice at all.

The authorities in Sudan are of the view that they do have freedom of speech but blasphemy is not allowed in terms of their religious laws.

This division between those who want freedom of speech almost at any cost as opposed to those who view censorship and legal strictures, particularly where it comes to religion, as necessary for any number of reasons is going to become more and more marked in this age of information.

Communications are speeding up all the time. What we say in Moscow is heard in Peru almost immediately.

While we cannot expect the laws of the other countries receiving the information to apply, by using those of the “host” country, surely, some measure of decency and discipline might be maintained.

If we regard the pornography and other images on the internet, we get some measure on anarchy, if we were to allow it. The internet is a get-anything-you-want place where only our discernment, or lack thereof, dictates the fare.

If we allowed this approach to govern relations outside the internet, we would be inviting mayhem — freedom of speech gone wild would translate into people going wild.

Yet against this we must be aware that freedom of speech protects us against the abuse of power, draws attention to issues that need to be addressed and reduces suspicion where people communicate their real beliefs as opposed to the line sold to them by interest groups.

The trick is demarcating the lines where certain rights end and others begin. The difficulty is in establishing how to even start going about the process.

It’s a form of evolution in itself.