Why is it that talk show host Robert Kilroy-Silk's statements which vilified and scorned Arabs (Muslims) was applauded as a right to free speech, but the remarks by Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the Organisation of Islamic Conference summit regarding Jews were deemed to be unacceptable by the Western intelligentsia?

Yet in comparison to Kilroy-Silk's vitriol, Dr Mahathir's statements were benign and maybe even complimentary. Is there an underlying principle that makes Kilroy-Silk a hero and Mahathir a villain in the West? This begs the question, what does free speech really mean?

Any reasonable person from any part of the world would state the obvious: free speech is the right to express opposing views. The implication is that, you may hear an opinion that you like but by the same principle you must be prepared to tolerate an opinion that you detest. It is the latter situation that tests one's integrity and commitment to the principle.

Those who control the mass media, clearly have disproportionate power and influence on the society. Therefore, they have a responsibility to assure a balanced opinion. Particular care has to be taken in protecting minority communities and those who do not have a representative voice in the media. It is therefore irrational to advocate that Kilroy-Silk has the right to express his personal opinion under the banner of free speech, given his influential position. In the same way, no senior army officer or a government minister would be allowed to voice criticism under the same pretext, regardless of the consequences.

In reality, it seems that free speech only becomes an issue when it is a matter of 'protecting' those engaging in Muslim abuse, while any criticism of Israel is labelled anti-Semitic. It is inconceivable to imagine that Muslims would be given the same support for free speech if they engaged in criticising Israel using the same language. On the contrary, they would immediately be gagged, sacked and then incarcerated Guantanamo Bay style.

Kilroy-Silk conveniently claims that his disparaging remarks were aimed at Arab States rather then the masses. Yet, he never explicitly or implicitly referred to any Arab countries. The reference to "limb amputators and women repressors" was clearly derogatory comments about the Islamic laws. If he feels that strongly about the issues, why does he not have the courage to debate these issues openly with the proponents of Islamic law? In addition, Kilroy-Silk admits that he is not a novice, when it comes to 'criticising' the Arabs.