Google

By principle, I refrain from commenting on other's writings, but then, from what I have been reading in the last two issues of the Vector in the opinions section about the whole cartoon controversy, I can seldom keep shut anymore.

As a neutral, rational reader it pains to see such imbecile arguments from both sides to defend their points of view. In the end, all I get to read is a shoddy representation of "opinions."

It is without doubt that freedom of speech is something that must be present in every country. By that token, I applaud all of you for taking a stand. But just because you have a right of free expression, it doesn't mean that you can make irresponsible and immature statements and get away with it. In a democracy, it is pertinent that everyone's voice is heard. However, at the same time, there are certain protocols that one needs to follow. The power to voice your view also comes with a duty to make rational statements.

Without taking anyone's sides, there are a few observations that I can make from what has been published in the paper. I would also abstain from taking names, but the comments made are so brazen that it will be self explanatory.

One columnist's take on the cartoon controversy was indeed controversial and it is no surprise that it sparked responses that are equally controversial. Issues involving religion always evoke passion and so one needs to be careful while venturing into that territory. When the leader of a particular faith is shamed, the people that follow that faith have a legitimate reason to be angry. So by that logic, the response to the article was warranted.

However, the views expressed by the columnist are just that: views. You can agree or disagree, but there is a method to express oneself. The language used was overly critical thereby re-routing the focus of the issue at hand.

The cartoon was a mistake and any justification in the name of freedom of expression is flawed. Religion as I said is a...