More from Jordan Times.

- Nadine Toukan, as you say “Dialogue is Key” – TY for that.

- Ammar, I agree that there is a lot of misunderstanding but I have to disagree on one of your comments about not allowing other cartoons. Anybody is free to express his or her opinion in speech, in text, in drawing or whatever legal media he or she might want to use irrespectably of the content of the opinion. If it after publication is deemed “illegal” by someone it can be taken to court.

- Imad, Thank you for your comment. People have freedom of speech and consumers have freedom of choice. You can make political statements with what you consume or refuse to consume. But I would like to give you my thoughts as an economist about why this is not the best way to react.

The economic side: In this fierce competitive global economy we all live in, very few people actually buy daily products because they originates from some specific country. They make their choice because the product is cheaper or better or whatever rational economic reason they might have. To exclude products for political reasons might give you personal satisfaction, but it leaves you worse off in economic sense.

The development side: Because of outsourcing and for transportation many products are actually manufactured in third countries or locally. By boycotting, the consumers might hurt local production and causing job loss or loss of production in a third country, which has nothing to do with the political issue at stake. I guess it would not be the right moral intention to hurt ones neighbour.

The social side. One country once decided to boycott all products from a country. Unfortunately, some critical medical products were all imported from that specific country. Not all political decisions are wise decisions.

The international side. According to the WTO, member state Governments does not have the general right to issue or to encourage boycotts. It would contravene the general purpose of free trade.

So, I my humble opinion the best way to react is to have a substantial dialogue about the issues at stake, but of course others might want to react differently as long as it is peaceful and within the law.

- Jane Doe, I am not really sure I understand your point. Maybe you could elaborate?

we understand the idea of freedom of the press, as a concept, but in a civilised country like denmark, a country that lends a helpful hand to people in the 3rd world and certainly our region, there should be a certain degree of common sense, you would never allow cartoons that illustrate what might be considered anti sametic, and in the same spirit, any illustration that mocks the islamic faith is considered offensive to the the greatest degree, freedom of speech isn’t absolute, our dismay at denmark is even greater not because it was were those cartoons were printed. but because it wasn’t the place we expect this type of blunt racism to be desplayed.

dialogue is key, it starts neither by insults or threats..nor by the reaction they create.

In a world that seems to be driven by language full of blame, accusation, and measuring of faults, we must try to induce our dialogs with the language of possibility.

I often say that one of the most hopeful human constants is our inherent need for inquiry and dialog – because to know is to keep asking.

What’s important about the demo and visit you mention above, is that it seems the organizers approached it with the attitude of possibility. That gives me hope.