IT'S rather unnerving when events come together as they did last week.

First Parliament passed the new law on religious hatred. It will be illegal to stir up hatred of religious groups if that is what you intend to do.

Next day, in a distinctly unholy coincidence, Mr Nick Griffin walked free as a Leeds jury found him not guilty of some charges of inciting hatred against Muslims, and failed to agree on others.

The subsequent claims of a victory for free speech rang rather hollow, coming from the leader of the British National Party.

So many of our basic freedoms originated in the European age of enlightenment.

Living according to the concepts of rationality and reason would lead to steady progress through the rejection of cloying tradition, superstition and tyranny.

This is hardly what we see in the fascist BNP!

Then came the anti-Muslim cartoons (which is certainly what they are) published by Danish newspapers.

For me, one of the 12 is funny. One is biting and ironic satire and another accurately forecasts the reaction of Muslim extremists.

The rest are gratuitous abuse or dangerous prejudice.

Our Lancashire Liberal Democrat MEP Sajjad Karim believes now the Danish paper has apologised, it should be the end of it.

But our TV screens have been filled with fanatics ranting and burning Danish flags.

Do any of these protestors really think that chanting "Osama bin Laden" does anything to counter the bigotry promoted by the likes of Griffin and the BNP?

None of this, thankfully, has happened in East Lancashire where it seems that saner counsels prevail.

So is publishing the cartoons acceptable? These are not easy questions as they are certainly insulting, and very hurtful to many.

The philosopher Voltaire is attributed the classic words, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But there must be a difference between hating people and criticising what they believe. The BNP are wrong because they demonise groups.

On the other hand the right to profess a belief goes hand in hand with the right of others to attack that belief. Are they not two sides of the same coin in rational, democratic societies?