Double Standards Regarding Religious Sensitivities

Google has decided to block Singapore IPs from using Youtube to view a film that Muslims deem to be offensive to their religion.  This is well and good, since it is arguably consistent with Singapore laws on religious harmony.

At the same time, I noticed that no liberal Singaporeans has complained of Google's move as being a fetter on the freedom of speech.  In stark contrast, when Christians complained to the government about The Da Vinci Code being blasphemous and offensive to them, the same liberals were quick to condemn the complaints as attempts to restrict freedom of speech.  So, prima facie, it would appear that these people think that the religious sensitivities of Christians do not deserve to be respected.

A standard argument put forth was that The Da Vinci Code was not really offensive, and that Christians who complained were too sensitive and ought not feel offended.  But that's a silly argument, since sensitivities are subjective, and depends on the feelings of those who are at the receiving end of the 'treatment'.  Those not at the receiving end have no valid grounds to judge whether anything is offensive or otherwise.  After all, it can easily be argued that white European skin-heads would not consider the film about Islam to be offensive and that Muslims have been too sensitive and ought not feel offended as well.

I hope you see my point, which is that if we want to promote free speech, the same standards should apply to all, or if we are in favour of curtailing free speech with an eye towards respecting religious sensitivities, such curtailment should also be applied consistently.