Danish? I think not.

Story so far: An editor in Denmark decides to push the envelope on self-censorship and free speech. He invites contributions from a bunch of cartoonists. The topic: The face of Muhammed. Background (in case you've been vacationing on another planet): Muhammed is the Prophet who founded the religion of Islam, which proscribes visual depictions of Muhammed himself, Allah (God), and, according to some severe interpretations, any person, in fact (effectively putting the kibosh on Michelangelo and his ilk).

Forty cartoonists respond, twelve of whom depict Muhammed (in defiance of Islamic proscription), some of which are in questionable taste. All are published in September 2005 (congruence with the World Trade Towers destruction month a coincidence?). Protests start from October 2005, varying from petitions from Danish Muslim groups to a request to meet the Danish Prime Minister by eleven Arab ambassadors. An apology is published by the newspaper. The meeting with the ambassadors is refused, apparently because the Danish government thought they were demanding criminal prosecution against the newspaper.

Protests escalate worldwide as publicity grows. Embassies in Arab nations are stoned and burnt. Riots break out. People die.

Arguments in favour of the cartoons range from freedom of speech and freedom of expression to, "Hey, we make fun of Christianity and our God and our politicians, so what's the big deal?"

As a reasonable member of humanity (I'm in a minority, I know, but bear with me) I find the whole imbroglio fantastic beyond belief. If I was to attempt to explain it to a visiting alien I'm not sure I'd be able to show humanity in a favourable light.

Let's start with the starting point, the cartoons and the request that prompted them. Does the Danish press have any doubts about its own freedom? Why did it feel the need to get up on a table and thump its collective chest about how free it was by publishing cartoons that it knew were offensive to a significant section of humanity? What's so offensive about self-censorship anyway? Maybe self-censorship in certain contexts can be viewed as a terrified response to threats and domination, but surely that wasn't happening here? Isn't self-censorship also an indication of maturity and a humane approach to tricky situations?

For example, an intelligent parent chastising a child is unlikely to use abusive language no matter what the provocation, and instead will try and get the point across in a reasonable way. That's self-censorship.

Or, a calm driver will not succumb to road rage and will refrain from giving the public finger to someone who cuts into his lane. He may well yell abuses safely within the confines of his own car, but will usually not roll down the window and inform the other driver of his questionable parentage. That's self-censorship. (Now you know my driving response tactics.)

Or, your best friend falls in love with a dork who gives you the creeps and you refrain from hurting his feelings by professing to admire her knowledge of the best way to cook sweet potatoes. That's self-censorship.

Self-censorship can't be all bad. So, why did the Danish newspaper feel this urge to do something about it.

The argument that we do it to ourselves and our religious figures, so we can do it to yours is asinine. It's on the lines of, "I beat up my wife, so it's ok for me to pop over on the weekend and beat up your wife too." Two wrongs don't make it right.

The West (and particularly Europe) prides itself on its mature approach to religion and its ability to separate Church and State. There is a lot of undisguised dismay, cynicism and ridicule aimed at the US for its unabashed espousal of the Religious Right point of view in these post-Clinton years. Much of this is because Europe has tried to pretend that it thinks of all religions as equal and equally worthy of scorn, a point of view that agnostics and atheists alike gleefully espouse. However we seem to have lost sight of the fact that religions continue to matter to those who practise them and if we are to live together, we have to agree that people are entitled to that opinion. Freedom of opinion, right?

Okay, let's move on to the reactions and responses to what was admittedly a decidedly stupid action. (Well, I'm not sure anyone else has admitted to it being a stupid action, but I sure think it was.)

If anything, the reaction has been even more stupid than the cartoons themselves.

How does burning an embassy and killing one's own people in riots constitute a sensible response? Boycotting Danish goods made some sense and would probably have hurt the West where it counted most - in their pockets. Rioting in Indonesia and Jordan and Syria merely proves the West's point, namely, that all Muslims are fanatical apes. Which is so not.

But the supreme irony of this entire episode is this:

"Danish" is an adjective meaning "of or from Denmark" and it's pronounced "Dane-ish". But there's another meaning and pronunciation. Pronounced "Done-ish" but with a soft "d" as in "there" (which oddly, doesn't have a "d" but does have a "d" sound) it means, guess what?

It means "intelligent" and is a common Muslim name. Yep, Muslim name.

Danish, Danish.

The world is weird.