The Globe and Mail published an editorial on Monday defending the necessity of cruelty in editorial cartoons.

An excerpt:

Politican cartoons are much in the news these days. The uproar over those famous Danish cartoons reminds us how powerful these funny little scribbles can be and how important they are to the right of free expression. Twelve simple drawings in a Danish newspaper have caused anger and mayhem around the Islamic world.

Whether the Jyllands-Posten was right to publish the provocative drawings about the Prophet Muhammad is something honest people can disagree about. It would be tragic, however, if the controversy over the Danish partoons placed a chill on this most necessary of art forms. Unless political cartoonists feel free to dip their quills in poison ink, a society cannot truly be called free. In autocracies, cartoonists are silenced, jailed or reduced to drawing harmless doodles, as is our friend in Iran. In democracies worthy of the name, authorities grit their teeth and leave cartoonists alone.

... It is unfair to to demand fairness from a cartoonist. His job is not to deliver a balanced view of things. It is to take aim at a target and let fly. ...

The cartoon that is meanest is often truest. If free speech is to flourish, cartoonists must have the right to be cruel.

Generally speaking, I agree.

One of the cherished rights we have in this country, along with other liberal Western democracies, is the right to mock our leaders. In many countries, you would be risking your liberty, if not your life, to engage in that sort of behaviour.

In a way, the editorial chickened out, because it didn't talk about the propriety of mocking religious leaders, beliefs or symbols.

Personally speaking, while I don't wish to gratuitously offend a religious group,  I believe that commentators across the spectrum must reserve the right to be able to do so, with the bounds of laws like libel or hate speech.

At the same time, the publication must allow a right of response.

Given that we are a diverse society, with people from a multitude of cultures and religious backgrounds living in Canada, a publication should also ask itself before publishing a potentially offensive cartoon exactly why it's doing so.

That decision should be tested against other questions, like whether the cartoon will bring a new and needed perspective to a debate or whether it simply promotes existing negative stereotypes.

The publication should also examine its track record with respects to both commentary on and news coverage of the specific religious or other group targeted by the cartoon. When uproars occur, I sometimes wonder if the offended group sees it as a "last straw" as opposed to an isolated act.

However, I think new Canadians who weren't raised in liberal Western-style democracies may themselves require some education about how freedom of expression works.

For example, if you grew up in Turkey, you might be familiar with the crime of "insulting Turkishness." Novelist Orhan Pamuk had been charged with that crime. Here's why -- He said in a magazine interview:  "One million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds were killed in these lands, and nobody but me dares talk about it." However, charges were dropped on Jan. 23.)

Merely raising a taboo subject is enough to bring criminal charges. Folks, that isn't supposed to happen in a free society.

In Jordan, journalists Jihad Momani and Hisham al-Khalidi had been arrested and charged under that country's press and publications laws.

Here's an excerpt from a Feb. 23 Middle East Times story:

Former Jordanian newspaper editor Jihad Momani, on trial for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, told the court on Wednesday that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing, his lawyer said.

"Jihad Momani gave a statement to the court in which he stressed that his aim in publishing the cartoons was not to offend the religions sentiments of Muslims," attorney Mohammed Kteishat said.

"The aim was to draw attention to what had been published in the Danish press," Kteishat said, adding that a new hearing was set for March 9.

Earlier this month Momani, former editor of the weekly Shihane tabloid, was arrested and put on trial on charges of "attacking religious sentiment". He has pleaded not guilty and since been released on bail.

Hisham Al Khalidi, editor in chief of the tabloid Al Mehwar, is also on trial in Jordan for reprinting the offensive cartoons.

Let's remember what Momani did. His paper reprinted three of the cartoons and asked:

"Muslims of the world be reasonable. What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?"

That warrants a jail sentence?