These are the cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammed
that my newspaper Jyllands - Posten published around nine years ago.
And I apologize if there is anybody in the audience who might be offended by them. 
Since then I have been traveling the world, engaging in public debates
about free speech in the most different countries 
from Saudi Arabia to Israel, from Russia to Ukraine to the U.S.
from the North of Europe to the South of Europe.
I've learned that in spite of the huge differences in culture
history and political regimes the debate is everywhere the same.
On one hand you have the right to free speech, and very few people would dispute that right 
though they might have different understandings of what it implies. 
And on the other, you have the necessary limitations
that any society needs, on speech, in order for its citizens to be able to live together in peace.
Limitations cover a wide spectrum.
From almost none in the United States to a large number in oppressive and authoritarian regimes.
Be they justified by religious sensibilities, for cultural, historical or ideological reasons.
Defending speech on the international level has always been difficult. 
But in some ways it is getting more difficult.
We are confronted with new challenges to freedom of expression
and they are reinforced by two factors that drive globalization in a very fundamental way. 
The one is communication technology 
which means that any information published somewhere
even in a small country and in a language that very few people can read 
immediately it is published everywhere and is accessible to anyone with a digital device.
On the one hand, this creates enormous opportunities for sharing information and co-ordinating civic initiatives.
But on the other, it provides room for manipulation and misunderstanding 
because the original context and intent behind publishing something
gets lost in transmission and translation as was the case with the cartoons.
The other factor that drives globalization and presents a challenge to free speech is migration.
People are moving across borders, and in numbers and at a speed never seen before in the history of mankind.
The implication is that the vast majority of societies around the world
are becoming more and more multi ethnic, multi cultural and multi religious.
Many people welcome this.
But many of the same people insist that growing diversity of culture and religion 
should not be accompanied by the same kind of diversity when it comes to speech and opinions.
It provides us with a paradox.
The more diverse a society becomes in terms of religion, culture and ethnicity 
the more conformist it tends to be in terms of what kind of opinions can be aired in public.
Governments defend this approach, referring to the need to keep the peace
and avoid clashes between different groups.
An example: ten years ago, the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was killed by a young believer 
who felt offended on behalf of his God by some of the things that van Gogh said.
After the killing, the Dutch minister of justice said that van Gogh's life could have been saved 
if the Netherlands had had tougher laws against hate speech. 
Unfortunately, it's not only governments that advocate this approach.
The human rights industry 
also defends limitations on speech referring to the protection of human dignity and vulnerable identities. 
Identity is a key word.
Human diversity and mobility and the amount of information we have access to 
means that it is not always easy to answer questions like 
"Who am I?", "Who are we as a community?" "How do we protect our identity?"
This combined with a wide spread grievance culture 
and insult fundamentalism is a powerful tool in the hands of identity politicians on the right and on the left. 
Identity politics; the fact that we are more concerned with protecting the sensibilities of certain groups
than we are defending the rights that we are entitled to as human beings across cultures and continents 
has become a growing challenge to free speech.
All kinds of insult laws, hate speech laws, blasphemy laws
laws protecting specific versions of history, are based in identity politics.
Some of them are more benign than others
but they all contribute to the undermining of free speech and endanger a free and open debate.
Take a law passed this May by the Russian parliament 
against white washing or clarification of Nazism.
To many this sounds reasonable at first sight.
But the law, that is in fact inspired by Holocaust denial laws in Europe 
introduces criminal liability for spreading false information
about the Soviet Union's role in the Second World War.
This is a way of exploiting the sacred memory of the Second World War victory of the Soviet Union.
So today in Russia, if you write about the crimes of the Red Army 
on their way to Berlin in 1944 or 1945 you may risk three years in jail.
It also means that any criticism of the conduct of Josef Stalin, the bloodiest dictator in the history of Russia
may end in a prison term.
Where do we move on from here?
How do we move forward in a world transformed by communication technology
and migration where every society is getting more and more diverse?
One way is to say "If you protect what is sensitive to me against ridicule, harsh words and criticism 
I protect what is sacred and important to you.”
"If you respect my taboo, I respect yours."
That's the way of identity politics.
"If you ban holocaust denial, I'll ban the right to publish
cartoons of the prophet Muhammed and if you ban cartoons
of Muhammed I'll ban whatever you find insulting to prophets of other religions."
And in order not to discriminate non-believers we also have to criminalize
insults to secular prophets like Karl Marx or Adam Smith 
or whomever you might come up with.
To my mind, this will lead to a tyranny of silence.
A situation where nobody can say anything that couldn't be perceived as offensive to somebody.
The other way to go is to ask ourselves, what are the minimal limitations that we need on speech 
in order to be able to live together in peace?
I think that the only limitation we need is incitement to violence.
But, it won't be easy
and it will take a change of the grievance culture and insult fundamentalism that is so wide spread.
It will take an understanding of the fact that in a democracy we enjoy many rights
the right to vote, the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech
the right to free assembly, the right to freedom of movement and so on and so forth.
But, the only right that we should not have in a democracy is the right not to be offended.
So instead of sending people to sensitivity training when they say something offensive
we all need insensitivity training.
We all need thicker skins if freedom of speech is to survive in a globalized world.
Thank you.
