Flemming Rose (of Jyllands Posten 'notoriety') stands by his editorial right to publish the 12 cartoons. It would be good if someone knowledgeable and well-informed could engage him in a civilisational dialogue or debate and so 'shoot' directly at his email address: [email protected], copied to malaysiakini so that we can follow the exchange.

The better part of valour is to win him, and others of like ilk, by persuasion. Flemming's arguments represent one school of thought and appears pretty formidable in the European context, particularly the Danes. It basically shows a clash of civilisational values. He simply wants to beg to differ. Can anyone refuse him that right? The debate could possibly extend on to the uncertain doctrine of proportionality in the context of national differences.

It would also appear the publication of the cartoons can be challenged under the freedom of expression provision, Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms .

This is, I suspect, a novel point of law for the Strasbourg jurisprudence. Muslim groups with a European domicile might wish to take up the issue and establish a 'persuasive' precedent. Persuasive because the European Court of Human Rights is not bound by the traditional doctrine of precedent well-entrenched in common law jurisdictions.

But be forewarned, the provision is also couched in such broad language it would appear difficult to strain a gnat and altogether possible a camel could gallop past. This would be further exacerbated by the doctrine of 'margin of appreciation' prevalent in the construction of the meaning of convention rights.

But the debate would be tremendously helpful, if not at least so that perchance it will help Europeans generally to understand Muslim sensitivities. Flemming Rose was admittedly aware of the sensitivities before the cartoons went to press but it would not be too farfetched to say that the overwhelming majority of Europeans would be largely unaware of the fervid sentiments that surround the issue.

If the issues are not well-aired but are quickly buried after this recent clamor and controversy, another pen in another corner of Europe or some other distant corner of the globe would likely percolate the censorship (where there is any) and repeat the same mistake leading to another conflagration.

Some form of open debate or dialogue or court proceedings may yet be salutary to engender a heightened awareness and promote some form of respectful self-censorship which is the spirit of Article 10(2), ECHR (though arguable).

Like MGG Pillai says, "You don't shout 'fire' in a theatre". And, if I may add, you don't use the "F" word on some neighbour's mom. The latter would be sufficiently provocative for some to wreak mayhem and murder. Any justification for so acting is only a concession to human frailty, not of its right. Burning and busting is no panacea for an enduring future. Besides, what of the many questions posed about our own spiritual and intellectual moorings, and our civilised society?

A continuing civilisational dialogue or more that brings within its compass cultural and social values and differences is needed. Can the debate be resolved with words? It should ameliorate.