Dear Editor:
The question is does "freedom of expression" have any limitations or is it an indefinite right with no limitation whatsoever?
Is it wrong or unreasonable to tinge it with some consideration as to how deeply and profusely it may affect or offend others?
It may please Christians and other guests to serve ham at a party, but it will produce an opposite reaction from orthodox Muslim and Jewish guests.
Is it therefore too much for them to call for and expect different service and treatment?
Humanity is slowly evolving, but the faculty of reason and rationality is still not fully developed in the majority of men (and women).
The ancestral animal instinct is still powerful in the majority of us, and therefore to trigger this negative and strong instinct in men, and then entirely blame them only for the uncivilized and primitive reason from them may not be fully justifiable.
Let unalloyed reason prevail! And then we should not forget that people relying on "freedom of expression" do not always harbour altruistic motives. The opposite can often be the case.
Goodwill is not a common quality in humanity.
To put a glass of milk within the sight and reach of a cat, and then blame it for its consumption may not be a wise judgment. The owner of the cat has to limit his "freedom of action" to do anything in his own house because of the presence of the cat in the house.
Humanity is a huge family of seven billion people of different cultures, colours, religions, beliefs, etc. and intimately linked and inter-dependent.
This pluralism should be taken into consideration when saying or doing anything which may widely affect different peoples differently, especially when they are far from the truth.
S.H. Dharsee, Burnaby
