Not surprisingly I had several comments from readers following last Sunday’s column accusing me of double standards for not defending Zapiro’s constitutional right to insult Muslims. To be honest, I’m not very fond of Jonathan Shapiro. I think he’s a brilliant cartoonist but as slippery as a bucketful of eels when it comes to integrity. When I got sacked from the Sunday Times for writing an allegedly “racist” article a couple of years ago he couldn’t wait to put the boot in at the Franschhoek Literary Festival. He certainly didn’t defend my right to freedom of speech on that occasion as he sat in a smug clammy sweat while the predominantly white audience looked on in bemusement. What became clear to all present was that young Johnny Shapiro couldn’t actually give a shit about freedom of speech if it is being exercised by someone with a posh English accent and a house in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg.

But my opinions on the Zapiro cartoon last week had nothing to do with the fact I think he’s a sanctimonious toady. And my suggestion that he was way out of order to insult South African Muslims was not an endorsement to curb press freedoms. Far from it. It was simply a matter of good manners and, as I’ve already explained, this is a foreign concept to Zapiro.

Those who support freedom of speech fall into two distinct camps; the active and the passive. The active are by far the smaller group and are made up of people like myself and Zapiro who put our names to our work every week. When an article appears with my name on it I have to accept full responsibility for the contents of that article. The passive supporters of freedom of speech have things much easier. They are the ones who are quick to criticize an article suggesting that a cartoon deliberately mocking the Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon him) shouldn't enjoy the same freedom as those mocking the Roman Catholic faith or Christianity. If Catholics and Christians can take it then why can’t the Muslims get a bloody sense of humour goes the reasoning? If only it were as simple as that. The Muslim community in SA, while angered at Zapiro’s tasteless cartoon, proved themselves to be generous spirited members of society by their acceptance of his overdue apology. This doesn’t mean that they are a humourless bunch that are enemies of freedom of expression.

The passive supporters of freedom of expression are quick to accuse me of double standards and cowardice but when I suggest that they might like to write an article insulting to Muslims under their own name which we will happily publish on Newstime along with their contact details they suddenly go very quiet. So it’s all right for someone else to whip up the frenzy in the name of freedom of speech and take the heat while they remain out of sight but they wouldn’t have the guts to do it themselves it appears. Like him or not, Zapiro has drawn some very edgy cartoons and I admire him for having the guts to do so. And I support his right to do so even if that support is not reciprocated.

But the offending Zapiro cartoon was wrong for one simple reason. If I accidentally kick your shin under the table and you flinch I apologise. I know you don’t like it but you also know it was an accident and I didn’t mean to do it. If, however, I see that it annoys you and I do it again then I am pushing my luck. If you tell me to not kick you in the shin and I repeatedly do so then I am obviously out to be as obnoxious and aggressive as possible.

Muslims have made it abundantly clear that they object to any drawings of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). If you’re not a Muslim (and obviously I’m not) it is perhaps difficult to see where the offence lies but the ground rules have been peaceably laid down and you break them at your peril. It’s not even a case that some extreme Muslims object but most don’t. It is a universal rule. In which case it is just plain bad manners to ignore such a reasonable request. If Muslims take their religion more seriously than Catholics or Protestants and don’t like it to be mocked why should that be seen as a weakness?

Freedom of expression is a lovely idea in theory but sooner or later someone is bound to be offended. Over the years I have apologized for several things I have written that offended people and on occasions made symbolic donations to charity as penance. The difference is that I had no idea that some readers would be quite so offended when I wrote the article. If you sit worrying about who you might offend you will never write another column. Zapiro’s cartoon, on the other hand, was bound to offend because he did what he was specifically asked not to do by a particular religious group. Bad manners. Bad judgement. Good publicity. As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.