In my speech in Oslo on Friday 5 June in a session on the Right to Offend, I along with others argued that this was a dangerous development as it could limit moderate Muslim voices who advocate things such as the end of capital punishment and greater women’s rights, as well as potentially undermine the rights of religious minorities.

Surely, the original UN charter is about protecting the rights of the individual, not religions, countries or political credos?

The week-long conference also looked at wider issues of freedom of expression, such as the persecution of journalists around the world. It debated the right to offend and publish works such as the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, which caused a recent furore, to whether the far right political parties in Europe should be allowed to openly campaign in the media. Where do we draw the line on freedom of Expression — if ever.

The election results showed gains for the far right parties across Europe. While some of us argued at Oslo, that provided these parties did not openly advocate hate crimes it was their right to speak out, others have voiced deep concern about the consequences of giving such odious groups freedom to offend.

This week I spoke to the Association of Jewish Refugees, an organisation that supports Holocaust survivors. Their viewpoint, shaped by terrifying personal histories, gave me pause for thought. These people have survived the horrors that were the very reason the UN set up its charter of rights. Yet some of these survivors have voiced fear about the consequences of the familiar scenario of deep economic recession combined with the rise of far right and neo-Nazi parties. Their call is for greater curbs on the groups’ freedom to express their fanatical views.

Any thoughts?